Dambusters question

[Dr Jekyll]

We all know the losses on the Dambusters raid were high. But as I understand it. One Lancaster was shot down over the target having been previously damaged and another was damaged over the target and shot down later. But of the remaining 6, 1 was shot down on the way home, and the other 5 were either shot down or crashed outbound, before getting anywhere near the dams. What exactly made the raid so dangerous?

[rolling20]

As a Lanc pilot said at the time,’ they did well to only lose 8 out of 19’, or words to that effect. Flying low level at night with only Mk1 eyeball and a map was a precarious occupation and over occupied Europe it was ,one would imagine ,somewhat worse!

[b1lanc]

Electrical wires elevated on pylons brought down at least two aircraft outbound including Astell and Barlow. Flak got Byers, Ottley and Burpee outbound. Ken Brown has an excellent description of Ottley's demise on YT as they were flying relatively close. Luftwaffe pilot Johannes Doerwald claims to have shot down Maudslay though the official narrative I believe is flak - as was for Young.

Brown's keynote is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq8rjBWIXEA

[jindabyne]

Dr Jekyll

Had you been on-board any of those aircraft, I don't think that you'd be asking that question.

[PDR1]

Dr Jekyll
Had you been on-board any of those aircraft, I don't think that you'd be asking that question.

I don't think that's fair. I don't think DrJ is suggesting that bomber flying wasn't dangerous - he is just asking what was it about THIS particular mission which resulted in a loss rate which was so much higher than the typical mission, especially in light of the fact that the dams were comparatively lightly-defended compared to most targets. Personally I think the answer has two main elements:

1. The nature of the mission meant that they had to fly on a bright, moon-lit night with minimal cloud cover to hide in, making the aircraft vulnerable to flack and fighters.

2. The routes to the target involved flying closer to known flack and night-fighter concentratiojns, so the only tactical option available was to fly at max cruise and extreme low-level most of the way. The Lancaster is a big aeroplane to throw around at high speed and low level (often below treetop height) and obstacles like church spires, telegraph and power cables/pylons, trees and even just rising ground could be difficult to see in time to avoid them.

The third element would be that the actual attack paths have very tight egress paths, so some aircraft flew into the surrounding hills after bomb release. But this is outside the scope of the question that was asked.

€0.0006 supplied,

PDR

[rolling20]

Sorry to be pedantic, but it is Flak, not Flack. One hit from a 20mm explosive cannon shell could bring down a bomber. One would have thought they should have flown at 4,000ft. Too high for the light Flak and too low for the heavy. That was the thinking at the time anyway.

[India Four Two]

About five years ago, I was at Tauranga, NZ doing some flying. My wife bought a book for me in the Classic Flyers gift shop that contained interviews with people involved with the dams raid. Subsequently she was looking at it and noticed writing on the fly leaf. "We should take this back, it's used!" I had a look and said "No, it's not used. That's an inscription by Les Munro, the last living dambuster pilot!"

Les was very candid in his interview in the book. His aircraft was hit by flak over Holland and the intercom system failed. Since the bombing run required the bomb aimer to talk continuously to the pilot, they turned back. He said that he was probably only alive because of the intercom failure.

Les died in Tauranga in 2015, aged 96.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/04/last-surviving-dambusters-pilot-les-munro-dies-96

[b1lanc]

The third element would be that the actual attack paths have very tight egress paths, so some aircraft flew into the surrounding hills after bomb release. But this is outside the scope of the question that was asked.


No AC flew into hills after the attacks though there is some conjecture that one of Maudslay's earlier attempts on the Eder may have damaged the bomb release mechanism after hitting trees. Gibson described the climb out from the Eder as "near vertical". More than likely the bomb never hitting the water and making a direct hit on the parapet direcly under the aircraft caused some damage. In any case, Maudslay was shot down by flak near the Dutch/German border. Hopgood (already hit by flak outbound) dropped his store late causing it to explode under the aircraft after bouncing over the dam wall. Hopgood was hit by flak again while climbing out from the Moehne. Young, Maudslay, Hopgood, Byers, Burpee and Ottley were shot down by flak. Astell and Barlow hit power lines or supporting pylons.

[Lookleft]

You might want to look at the doco titled "What the Dambusters Did Next" It was an attack on the Dortmund-Ems canal and the loss rate was even worse. I think John Nichol from Gulf War fame hosted it.

[Heathrow Harry]

Sorry to be pedantic, but it is Flak, not Flack. One hit from a 20mm explosive cannon shell could bring down a bomber. One would have thought they should have flown at 4,000ft. Too high for the light Flak and too low for the heavy. That was the thinking at the time anyway.
4000 ft would be a dream for a night fighter tho... altho no-one said so I suspect they were v low to avoid radar. There was no bomber stream to lower the odds. A dozen Lancs at 4000 ft would attract every fighter for 200 miles...

[rolling20]

4000 ft would be a dream for a night fighter tho... altho no-one said so I suspect they were v low to avoid radar. There was no bomber stream to lower the odds. A dozen Lancs at 4000 ft would attract every fighter for 200 miles...
I think not. However, maybe I should have been more specific. Low level until near the Dutch coast, then fly higher. German Freya radar picked up incoming bombers 150 miles out, but at height. They were then tracked by Wurzburg and passed off to a night fighter, which in May 43 would have been part of the Khammhuber line and thus patrolling a box. Air interception was achieved at height, not low level. The fact that nothing was detected coming in would have rendered the early warning radar useless, thus the night fighter could not have been directed to its target. Even if a night fighter could have been directed to a target, a low level interception would not have been easy. Lichtenstein (as carried by German night fighters) had a relatively short range ,as little as 2.5km and was not downward looking.Once in the bomber stream, interception was easy, this was no bomber stream. The most common method of fighter attack then was below and astern, it would not have been easy. They were heading at a fast cruise for around 150 miles to their target once over the coast. The topography as they approached the dams would not have helped any interception either, radar or conventional.

[b1lanc]

I think not.

Quite and only 19 bombers over the continent. Pretty slim pickings though Gibson did relate in "Enemy Coast Ahead" that they witnessed an aircraft explode after being hit by flak on the way home. They all assumed a nightfighter.

[jindabyne]

PDR 1
I don't think that's fair.

Point taken.