Jump to content

The Dam Busters


Recommended Posts

Many moons ago ... maybe ... 2007? I worked with a guy who had quite a bit to do with various aspects of Jackson's burgeoning empire. At that time he mentioned, in passing, that he'd recently seen a massive diorama depicting a WWII battle scene. About the only specific detail he mentioed was that it included Tigers. He had no idea what it was for, even if it was for an ongoing or proposed movie.

I always wondered what that was about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One wonders what role Stephen Fry might have in such a film. Don't get me wrong, I think he is a wonderful actor and I love to watch him at work; I'm just having trouble seeing him fit anywhere in this particular narrative...unless he is doing a cameo as a minor character.

Michael

[late edit] Ah, so the second article says that he is involved in some of the script writing. That makes a certain amount of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is that supposedly a lot of the Star Wars movie where the good guys have to fly little fighters down into a canyon on a Death Star to shoot some special panel to blow it up, was inspired by the Dambusters movie. Aircraft moving fast inbetween giant walls, technicolor AAA, several good guys crash leaving the Hero the final shot to take out the Target, etc. etc.

But you can't replicate those stiff-upper-lip British officer pilots with their oh-so-regional workman crew, as they cheerily Get On With It and Muddle Through. They're gone the way of the dinosaur, sad really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you can't replicate those stiff-upper-lip British officer pilots with their oh-so-regional workman crew, .

I think you will find that this is a bit of a fallacy.Mainly due to most Post WWII films having well spoken actors playing the parts.The split between stiff up lip toff's and the common man was a lot smaller than people think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you will find that this is a bit of a fallacy.Mainly due to most Post WWII films having well spoken actors playing the parts.The split between stiff up lip toff's and the common man was a lot smaller than people think.

I think that was his point. However, you'll never convince Capt Mainwaring of that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they do it justice.

There was a fascinating documentary on cable a few weeks ago where an Alaska-based C-54 was used to replicate bombing runs on a miniature dam reconstruction. In one scary moment, they had video of the water spray plume of the dropped bomb nearly taking the tail off the C-54 - which may have happened to some of the real Lancs during the actual raid IIRC - or was a risk they worried about at the time, at least. The documentary goes into great detail about how they re-created the bombs and bomb spinning mechanism that was used historically. A great way to spend an hour if you can catch the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they do it justice.

There was a fascinating documentary on cable a few weeks ago where an Alaska-based C-54 was used to replicate bombing runs on a miniature dam reconstruction. In one scary moment, they had video of the water spray plume of the dropped bomb nearly taking the tail off the C-54 - which may have happened to some of the real Lancs during the actual raid IIRC - or was a risk they worried about at the time, at least. The documentary goes into great detail about how they re-created the bombs and bomb spinning mechanism that was used historically. A great way to spend an hour if you can catch the show.

That was on PBS. I watched it a couple of months ago from their website.

Frankly, I wasn't terribly impressed with the experiment. I guess you could say it was amazing that it worked at all, but it was the kinetic force of the bomb hitting their dam rather than the blast/shock that broke it. They sort of glossed over that part. The wartime setup was orders of magnitude better...but then, they had orders of magnitude more money to spend on it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one scary moment, they had video of the water spray plume of the dropped bomb nearly taking the tail off the C-54 - which may have happened to some of the real Lancs during the actual raid IIRC...

Not a Lanc and not during the raid, but it did happen to one of the planes (a Wellington?) during the testing. I think all aboard were killed.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Thanks.

Ten Lancaster bomber planes were already built and in storage for the movie, he said.

I'm gonna stick my neck out and guess that these are non-flying examples. Yeah, I know that Jackson is often lavish in his preparations, but even he much have limits...somewhere.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna stick my neck out and guess that these are non-flying examples. Yeah, I know that Jackson is often lavish in his preparations, but even he much have limits...somewhere.

I somehow think that if ten full sized, flying Lancaster replicas had been assembled ... you would have heard about it! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I somehow think that if ten full sized, flying Lancaster replicas had been assembled ... you would have heard about it! :D

I don't doubt it. Last I heard, and it was no more than a month ago, there were only two flying Lancs in the world. One is with the Battle of Britain Flight and the other is in Canada (I don't recall offhand which organization owns it).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was on PBS. I watched it a couple of months ago from their website.

Frankly, I wasn't terribly impressed with the experiment. I guess you could say it was amazing that it worked at all, but it was the kinetic force of the bomb hitting their dam rather than the blast/shock that broke it. They sort of glossed over that part. The wartime setup was orders of magnitude better...but then, they had orders of magnitude more money to spend on it.

Michael

Hang on. Barnes Wallis? The observation of the shockwave effect in bridge pylons? The failures on the earthen dams? All incorrect?

Just the fact that they able to place the bomb against the wall would have helped, surely? So the experiment wasn't a failure, just expensive. Movie Star expensive...

The reflection of a shock wave under water from a higher density mass

can be modelled in ultrasound - the greater the difference in densities, and the more uniform the boundary between the two, the more energy is focused at the boundary. Whether a significant proportion of the energy would find mechanical release in the surface of the wall was what Barnes Wallis experimented on, after noticing the way the tops of concrete bridge piers were shattering when hit with a large steam hammer into a particular river bottom.

In the case of the piers, the shockwave was traveling from the hammer, down the pier, hitting and reflecting off the river bottom (change in density) and traveling back to the top. There it meets a even more marked change in density - some of the energy in the shockwave has to keep going in the direction of the open air. If their isn't enough mass in the air, there is little route for the energy to go to heat. Instead, the reflection back from the top surface of the pier sets up harmonic waves of standing force in the concrete, which under tension, turns to fragments. The kinetic energy of the flying fragments accounts for some portion of the energy of the shockwave.

From what I underst[ood\and], what Mr Wallis found was that the amount of explosive required to cause a dam wall to fail was relatively small if it was placed up against the wall, (well, duh) and was smaller again if placed on the wet side of the wall. He then turned his mind to placing a relatively small amount of explosive up against the wet side of a dam wall (small being about 1 tonne here, I think, could be wrong) without using up hundreds of bombers. Apparently the method he came up with worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on. Barnes Wallis? The observation of the shockwave effect in bridge pylons? The failures on the earthen dams? All incorrect?

Huh? Where did I say that? The remainder of your post was interesting and true SFAIK, but I don't see how it addresses either what I posted or your paragraph immediately above.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...