Talk:Operation Chastise

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

"first light"

"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" Young's "many forced landings"

"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)

IIRC Young and his crew had ditched on two separate occasions when returning from operations and had been picked up from their inflatable liferaft by either the RAF Air-Sea Rescue Service or by the RN. The fact that he was given the ironic, but good-humoured nickname, Dinghy, gives some idea how unusual the 'achievement' was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 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)

International law

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 relevance to this page in the international law addition as it was not relevant to Operation Chastise and appears to be politically biased. I suggest it is removed. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In the absence to anyone objecting by the 14th of January then I will edit the article to remove the international law section.Trevor Marron (talk) 00:19, 30 December 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.

I believe the only people prosecuted for war crimes at Nuremberg were the ones who:

• A - originated the order(s) knowing them to be illegal.

.. or;

• B - knew the order(s) was(were) illegal.

.. and;

• C - obeyed the order(s) willingly and without protest to their superiors.

Generally, German and other Axis officers and men who protested but still carried out the orders were not prosecuted for war crimes becasue they were not expected to risk their own lives, which is almost certainly what they would been doing if they had refused to obey, or not obeyed, the orders, i.e, they would have been risking being summarily shot.

Any reasonable person can see that given a choice between unwillingly-committing a war crime, or being immediately and with certainty shot dead, even the most decent-and-humane people will understandably choose the former. The courts were there to try, and to punish, the indecent and the inhumane who willingly and eagerly carried out a war crime, not everyone present when a war crime was being committed.

That's why certain people were arraigned at Nuremberg, and others were not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.137 (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Attack on the Möhne Dam

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.

There was no running commentary, no, the article is wrong. But each attacking aircraft sent a code group on its Marconi T1154 set, in Morse on HF, back to Scampton to indicate the result of the attack. For instance Gibson's 'Goner 68A' meant bomb released (Goner), exploded five yards from dam (6), no apparent result (8), at Target A. The two successful crews at the Moehne, Young's and Maltby's, sent 'Goner 78A', meaning 'bomb exploded in contact with dam' (7) but still no apparent result (8), because nobody could see what had happened in the mist caused by the explosions. Gibson then saw that the dam had gone and his wireless operator sent the name of Gibson's dog, meaning, 'Moehne Dam breached.' The same procedure was followed at the Eder Dam, except the target code was B and the success code was Sqn Ldr Young's nickname, 'Dinghy'. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, the crews were given 'fighter' VHF sets (R/T) for communication between themselves when in the air, but you are correct, the signals sent back to the UK would have been in Morse W/T. These 'fighter' VHF sets were the ones in general use in Fighter Command, although they were not as-yet in use by Bomber Command at the time.

IIRC, the 'running commentary' was made by Gibson during the raid itself over VHF to the other crews, to give the other crews a guide as to what was happening, and to tell each crew when to attack, radio silence by then being somewhat superfluous. Radio silence was resumed however for the flight back.

IIARC, R/T (as opposed to W/T) was later fitted to all Bomber Command aircraft generally, due to the introduction of the Master Bomber who needed it to give the Main Force crews instructions during a raid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.137 (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The Chastise aircraft were indeed specially fitted with fighter VHF R/T for talking among themselves. But there was no 'running commentary', and certainly none relayed to base. Gibson just gave orders over the R/T and the other skippers conversed as necessary. During the Eder attack, Les Knight got fed up with all the advice and told his W/Op, Flt Sgt Kellow RAAF, to switch the R/T off. Knight then cracked the dam, of course. The only signals sent to base were the T1154 Morse code groups from each aircraft after each attack, and the success codewords sent by Hutchison from Gibson's aircraft, 'Nigger' for the Moehne, 'Dinghy' for the Eder. Hutchison's 'Dinghy' signal reached 5 Group six minutes before Kellow's 'Goner 710B' indicating bomb gone (Goner), explosion in contact with dam (7), large breach (10), at Target B (Eder Dam). (John Sweetman, The Dambusters Raid, p.172.) Later in the war, when 5 Group had its own Pathfinder squadrons attached (Nos. 83, 97 and 627), one aircraft was fitted with a wire-recorder to capture the R/T talk during the target-marking, and staff at 5 Group would listen to the playback next day. The actual VHF signals could never be relayed back to England in real time and, with the enemy listening, it wouldn't have been a good idea anyway. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorpe lengthwise approach

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)

I saw a TV programme that said (IIRC) it was because the Sorpe was an earthen dam and hence the spalling effect of the underwater explosion wouldn't cause a breach in the same way it did against the concrete dams. The hope was that if the mine hit the apex and exploded then it would make a hole, water would pour through, eating away at the dam's earthen core, widening the breach and causing the dam to empty. An approach along the length the the dam was more likely to result in the mine hitting the dam's apex. The reason they crew took multiple trial runs was to try and ensure a hit and they got away with it because the dam had no defences. However, it was a desperation measure and highly unlikely to result in a breach.--Shimbo (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is correct, Sorpe as an earth dam needed to be washed away by water flow by cutting a channel at its apex, while the other dams where gravity dams than need to be collapsed from their base. There is a length explanation of this on the Dam Busters organisation website. http://www.thedambusters.org.uk/secondwave_sorpe.html 77.86.117.208 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Deaths

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).

Based on the German Wiki article, I added that later estimates put the total death toll as high as 1,600. Cf.: Die Zahl der Toten unterhalb der Möhnetalsperre liegt zwischen 1284 und über 1600 Menschen.

Sca (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This number has been challenged, and cites the non-German sources as incorrect. (this is on the Edersee Dam article. he POWS are said to have died in unrelated circumstances. I do not know myself either way, but its an important point. Ottawakismet (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.lwl.org/westfaelische-geschichte/portal/Internet/finde/langDatensatz.php?urlID=493&url_tabelle=tab_websegmente

The Dam Busters film

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 film is largely accurate with a bit of 'artistic licence' taken here and there. The number of aircraft taking part in the raid is reduced in the film, presumably due to the lack of airworthy Lancasters. The Upkeep mines used were still secret at the time the film was made and so the mockups fitted to the Lancasters were inaccurate. The flying scenes were most accurate apart from a few scenes where models had to be used, however the low-flying scenes of the aircraft on the outward journey were real and presumably flown during the day with a filter used over the camera lens to make it appear to be moonlight. The low flying is one of the most impressive things about the film (and the real operation) as the aircraft used were heavy bombers, and not more manoeuvrable types, such as fighters. IIRC, the Lancaster had a ~102ft wing span and the outward trip was flown at around 120ft altitude, coming down to 60ft for the attack itself, so the operation was flown very low indeed. The film can't be classed as 'fiction' as, compared to some notorious Hollywood war filmes, it's almost completely true with just a few justifiable alterations because of resources, information available, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.50.54 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the film is based on both Guy Gibson's book Enemy Coast Ahead, and on Paul Brickhill's The Dam Busters which were both non-fiction books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The diplomatic view Section

"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)

Germany declared war on the US because of the Tri-Partite Pact which required Germany and Italy to declare war on Japan's enemies, the clause-of which came into effect with the Japanese invasions in the Far East and simultaneous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

No. Hitler was already hopping mad at the U.S. for supporting his enemies and U.S. Naval convoys blasting U-boats. He jumped at the chance for war. This technicality had no effect on someone of his disturbed psychology. Japanese involvement meant that the U.S. was also fighting a 2-front war, and military resources could not be solely concentrated on Germany - so this was a "good" time to counter-attack. 50.111.52.57 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The only diplomatic aspect of the Dams raid was the hope that it might counteract some of the negative propaganda that had been put out previously in the US by the US ambassador in London, Joseph Kennedy, and which had led to him eventually being withdrawn from his post in London as being persona non grata.

There was no need to "persuade Stalin that Britain was capable of being an effective ally" as at the time the Soviet Union was still losing its war against Germany and no-one in the UK government knew whether Stalin would be worth continuing to support or not - Britain was at the time sending tanks and fighter aircraft to the Soviet Union and would continue to do-so for the remainder of the war.

The purpose of the Dams raid was to empty the Ruhr reservoirs thus denying Nazi Germany the hydro-electric power used by the steel production plants in the Ruhr Valley and to also flood these plant's blast furnaces thus extinguishing the fires and causing the furnace linings to collapse. Repairing these brick furnace linings and then re-lighting the furnaces and bringing them up to temperature would take weeks if not months and reduce German steel production considerably.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.137 (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Gibsonstraat

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)

Yeah, an unidentified users keeps reposting this misinformation. Although Gibson ulimately was KIA later on during the war, he definately survived the Dam raids - which is the subject of this article - and was awarded a VC for it, which he personally collected from Queen Elizabeth. -- fdewaele, 19 April 2010, 11:40 CET.

Gibson crashed his Mosquito in Steenbergen in Sept. 1944, and both he and his navigator, James Warwick, were killed. The town now has streets named after both Gibson and Warwick, and also after the Mosquito and the Lancaster: includes a picture of the street sign. --TraceyR (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The lake bottoms weren't flat. The bombs didn't explode at the base of the dams.

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)

The Upkeep mine had a hydrostatic pistol to detonate the explosives and so the bomb was set to explode at a certain depth, some way down the dam wall before it reached the reservoir bottom. Technically the Upkeep was basically a depth charge, but it was usually referred-to as a mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The pistols on the Upkeep mines were set to 30' (~9·15m). Astronomy Explained (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Reconnaissance

"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)

The given times of the period can be confusing - Britain was using British Double Summer Time during the war-time summers, (GMT+2) so times can be out by as much as a couple of hours depending on who the source is, and whether they are aware of this fact. Then there are the RAF navigators, who, IIRC, may have used GMT exclusively in their calculations. So different time zones can sometime account for discrepancies like you describe.

People can also get the date wrong, as Bomber Command operations were often carried out overlapping midnight, where the day changed, hence dates for operations such as "17/18 June 1944" - meaning they took off for the raid on the evening of the 17th and then landed back home on the morning of the 18th.

I suspect that the PRU Spitfire took off at first light at RAF Benson in which case the actual (i.e., solar) time would have been 05:30hrs GMT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 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)

unit conversion error

" 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)

I would guess that these are long tons, so 1m³ isn't relevant – that would be "tonnes". But I could be wrong, this does need clarification and the information seems to be unsourced, that would fix it. While I'm here, I noticed lots of "meters", which in British English would be "metres", but I didn't see anything about a preference for type of English: does this need work for consistency, anyone…? Just mentioning it. Nortonius (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A long ton differs only a little of the metric ton --Quirrlicht (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

True, so there wouldn't be much difference; but its irrelevance is in the use of a metric volume of water to illustrate an imperial weight – if that's really what's going on. It's muddled. Perhaps it should read something like "N [[Long ton|tons]], or N cubic yards (N [[tonne]]s, or N cubic metres)". It needs sourcing and checking, anyway. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Duh – I only just noticed that the fixers have been at it again: it's 687m (or whatever number that eventually settles at) cubed, not cubic. I've seen this changed before, it used to be much more accessibly described in the article as a cube measuring so many metres, in so many words, I'll change it back to that for now. Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As this is primarily a British subject page, British-English spelling shoudl be used, so I've dealt with the "meters" issue accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hidden Category

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)

I cannot see that a single location is relevant. There is however the possibility of someone marking with multiple locations, RAF Scampton, the routes taken, targets attacked, crash sites. I'd be tricky, but possible, but that's more complicated that an "it's there" single marker. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've commented out the template(for now?)--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Name of article

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)

No, for a start "Dams Raid" is better alternative title to "Dambusters Raid" which is very awkward, and that's what it's generally known as in the academic circles. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

External links

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)

Prisoners?

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.

Six dams selected, three attacked

While only three dams were actually attacked, six dams were selected as targets.

Primary

• Mohne Dam
• Eder Dam
• Sorpe Dam

Secondary

• Lister Dam
• Ennepe Dam
• Diemel Dam

http://www.thedambusters.org.uk/dams.html 77.86.117.208 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

McCarthy´s Bomber

"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)

The "reserve aircraft", ie spare, not allocated for use. He was still part of Wave 2, just late getting into the air. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

What's "Upkeep"?

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 bomb, a backspun revolving depth charge of 9,250lb including 6,600lb of RDX explosive, fitted with firing pistols sensitive to water pressure so as to ensure detonation at the correct depth against the dam wall, was codenamed Upkeep. The name, which would normally mean 'living expenses' or 'maintenance costs', is intentionally meaningless in the context. British military codenames are chosen, as a rule, at random, to be as uninformative as possible. The name 'Window', for radar-blinding tinfoil chaff, was chosen by a scientist who just looked around the room. A notable exception during the war was Operation Robinson, the RAF attack on the Schneider arms complex at Le Creusot. Some bright spark imagined that the Germans had never heard of Robinson Crusoe, when in fact Defoe's novel is a byword across Europe. Fortunately the Germans never got wind of that codename. But it's probably true that the article should explain more about the bomb. Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Water in steel-making?

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)

Perhaps for washing the ore -- from article "Iron ore". BMJ-pdx (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Very much water is used to make steel. American estimates range from 11,200 to 110,000 gallons of water per ton of steel.[1] If water is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article about steel, then that's a significant deficiency. You can fix it! Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

My personal guess is that what was meant was FRESH water for steel making - salt water is extremely corrosive and not used by industry. Pure H2O isn't necessary, but the cleaner the better for the machinery involved - muddy water tends to clog up works over time.50.111.52.57 (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Many of the highest-quality steels are made in foundries using induction heating which requires large amounts of electricity and much of this electricity is supplied by hydro-electric power stations which in turn require large amounts of fresh water. This is what the Ruhr dams stored. The power stations themselves were located at the base of the dams. Fresh water (as opposed to salt water) is used because it does not promote corrosion to the water turbines, etc.

Destroying the dams would remove this supply of water, hence disrupting steel production due to the lack of electricity.

Water is also used in the heat treatment of steel, where it is used for quenching the hot steel, to affect its hardness, etc., and is also utilised in rolling mills where it is used to stop the rollers sticking to the hot steel being rolled— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.170 (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

See also 1938 Yellow River flood

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)

The flooding of the Yellow River to affect ground movement is same principle as German Inundation of the Wieringermeer and Allied Inundation of Walcheren. The attack on the Dams was to strike industrial production by removing the water as a source of power not to use the water against the enemy.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)