Dambuster print

[AlanW]

Can anyone else, see what is wrong with this otherwise splendid painting.

[Upkeep]

Well - from a quick glance - the bomb release area doesn't look quite right on the main Lanc, although it's hard to tell. Also, the far aircraft (Gibson's ?) has its altitude spotlamps on. Not sure if this was accurate - though it is recorded that Gibson did turn his nav lights on while drawing fire.

But I suspect I'm missing something

[smudgersmith218]

Hi Alan,

Not sure, could it be flak bursts ? or the direction of spot lights.

Only a guess, my knowledge of the Dams Raid is rather sketchy at best.

Nice print as you say.

Steve

[Upkeep]

I keep looking at the bomb-aimers blister and thinking it doesn't look right for the Type 464 a/c, but I don't have any reference to hand.

The bomb release area on the main a/c (Martin's ?) doesn't look right either, but it's a bit indistinct.

Then there's the supporting a/c (Gibson's ?) I know it's recorded that he turned on his nav lights to draw the flak, but I wasn't aware he turned his spotlamps and landing lights on also. Makes sense though.

All else "looks" OK to me. Moon's in more or les the right place I think, a/c height about right, spotlamps look OK . . . .

But I suspect I'm missing something !

[AlanW]

You got it Steve, i was thinking that the actual flak bursts are a bit of a "no go" and should not in any way be there as far as i'm concerned, unless of course, they had a rather clever Speedy Gonzales as a flak gunner, who managed to set the shells for distance instead of height

[Upkeep]

This is interesting. We've all got used to seeing the Mohne flak the way that it is represented in The Dam Busters, which is more like tracer - in fact there is little difference between the fire from the dam and the fire from the attacking aircraft. I'm not an expert on German artillery, but I'm guessing it didn't really look like that. The German guns were firing shells at the approaching aircraft - would they not explode a certain time after leaving the barrel, irrespective of whether they were going vertically or horizontally ? Or did they only explode on impact ?

[Upkeep]

I did a little more research on this. It seems that German flak guns were capable of firing shells which would burst on impact, time/distance/altitude, or proximity. Clearly impact is not the case here. Time/Distance/Altitude rather depends on where the defenders thought an attack might come from. If they assumed it would be a high level bombing attack, then one would assume their ammunition would be timed to explode at many thousands of feet, which would be way beyond any attacking low-level aircraft if fired directly at them. Of course, if the Germans anticipated the possibility of a low level attack, then their ammo would have been set to burst much more quickly, as in the painting.

Then there are the proximity fused rounds. I don't pretend to understand fully how these work, but apparently they did, causing these shells to explode if reasonably close to a sizeable metal object. This too could account for the kind of bursts seen in the painting.

[smudgersmith218]

I am no expert of German flak, but the distance between the dam and the aircraft ( as depicted dropping the bomb ) was how far, just under 500 yards. ? The fuse must have been set at an incredibly miniscule setting given the velocity of the 88mm.

Na, I think the painting is wrong !

Steve

[PAFG]

Prox fuses use a Doppler shift radar signal which is most effective in the direction of flight - I don't think they'd detonate as shown. In the gunners they're an easier alternative to mechanical time fuses. I've seen reference to light flak 'self-destructing' at a given altitude in an ORB report on a Berlin raid. The same ORB usually reports light flak engaging the sky markers.

Richard

While we're at it - the prop discs seem to overlap?

[Upkeep]

So are we saying that the attacking a/c would not have seen anything of the shells fired at them unless they were hit ?