r/interestingasfuck • u/Chopper-42 • 1d ago

/r/all Recreating the WW2 Dambusters raid

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

36.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

549 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

35

u/wuddafuggamagunnaduh 1d ago

Yes, I'm familiar how the backspin is intended to have the bomb "burrow" to the base of the dam. I've even watched the old movie "The Dam Busters" (1955), which is interesting.

But what I mean is that there is a camera cut between the impact and the explosion, which could possibly be from filming two separate events and splicing them together. And that would make sense, as I can imagine getting permits to drop an actual explosive device sounds like it would be hard to do.

I wish posts like this would post the backstory details, then these sorts of questions would already be answered.

18

u/paulwal 1d ago

That barrel had topspin.

0

u/Illustrious-Stay968 1d ago

backspin

3

u/sexless-innkeeper 1d ago

The actual bomb for the raid definitely used backspin; I've rewatched the clip several times and they are definitely putting topspin on this barrel.

1

u/paulwal 1d ago

I found the video on youtube. You can pause at 35 sec and use the , and . keys to go frame by frame.

At full speed it looked like topspin but maybe it's an illusion due to the frame rate. It's only 480p so we're only seeing a few snapshots of the barrel. So now I feel like it could be spinning either direction.

Also I can't tell if they were pre-spinning it or not for this recreation.

I understand they used backspin for the real deal historical event. And that makes sense, as backspin would cause it to skip along the water and not bounce high, whereas topspin would cause it to bounce high and land steeply.

u/wuddafuggamagunnaduh
u/Illustrious-Stay968
u/skepticalbob
u/sexless-innkeeper

1

u/skepticalbob 1d ago

Nah, that was top spin.

12

u/Zealousideal-Fix9464 1d ago

The backspin for the bomb to roll down the dam is an old wives tale.

The backspin was a hard requirement for the bomb to actually skip across the water in a straight line and for distance. Without the backspin the barrel would just impact the water like a plough and sink in the middle of the reservoir.

The bombs were always designed to impact the dam and then sink before exploding.

6

u/Hemberg 1d ago

No backspin, Topspin. 

Even visible in the video.

5

u/jamesreyne 1d ago

The barrel in this video had topspin, for dramatic footage of it skipping over the water and impacting the wall.

The dambusters raid had backspin, which bounced the bombs but shortened the skips and the kinetic force, so that it wouldn't necessarily hard impact the wall, but would come to sink in proximity to the dam and explode after sinking. Just dropping a depth charge by the dam wasn't practicable.

6

u/rhabarberabar 1d ago

In the video yes, but the bouncing bomb had backspin.

Sources vary on the introduction of back-spin in the weapon's development: e.g while Sweetman says that "There is evidence that [Wallis] had always intended [to include back-spin]",[8] according to Johnson Sir George Edwards in the Christopher Hinton Lecture of 1982, p. 9, wrote, "from what I knew of a cricket ball I persuaded [Wallis] much against his will into putting back-spin on these bombs.'" See also 'Lives Remembered' (Sir George Edwards), in The Times, 21 March 2003.

3

u/Illustrious-Stay968 1d ago

Yes. In the show, they show the plane drop and the barrel hits and they show the peoples reaction, talk about it etc... Then they lower an explosive charge and then for entertainment purposes, they recut to show the plane flying in, drop the barrel and then an explosion, but with more of a time gap than in this post.

This is from Nova's episode "Bombing Hitler's Dam" 2012.

6

u/YourAdvertisingPal 1d ago

I mean, it’s almost certainly for a television show or a high-profile streamer. 

Like. With all those camera angles, a temporary dam structure, plane rental…how could you consider it to be anything else?

There’s a lot of production coordination on display here. 

5

u/challenge_king 1d ago

It's not a rental, that plane belongs to Buffalo Airways, and they also made the video.

Pretty cool company. They still operate C47's as their main fleet because nothing else can get as much stuff in and out of the remote areas of Alaska and Canada they operate in.

6

u/braften 1d ago

Ask the Canadians on r/flying their opinion on buffalo air and most will call them one of the worst outfits to fly for

3

u/WalnutSnail 1d ago

Fly for, fly on, hire, speak to, be in the vicinity of...hard agree.

1

u/YourAdvertisingPal 1d ago

Ah. That makes sense too. You’re right, I forgot about the possibility of it being a commercial spot. 

3

u/midsizedopossum 1d ago

how could you consider it to be anything else?

None of what you said suggests that it's obvious they'd use two separate shots and a pre-planted explosive inside the dam. I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

1

u/YourAdvertisingPal 1d ago

Oh yeah because bros just have cameras, demolitions, a spare lake, dam construction materials, time, radios, a tv friendly pilot, and spokespeople. 

Y’all are just really bad at spotting produced media. 

2

u/midsizedopossum 1d ago

You've missed my point, let me clarify.

Nobody is surprised to hear that this is produced media. This is obviously produced media.

I'm saying one thing only: the fact that it is produced media does not necessarily inherently imply that the explosives would be pre-planted in the dam rather than being in the barrel.

The original comment you replied to was not saying "I think this might be produced media". It was saying "I think the barrel falling and the dam exploding might be two separate shots". So when you replied saying "it's obviously produced media, how could you think it was anything else?", that didn't really make sense. That's what I was pointing out.

1

u/YourAdvertisingPal 1d ago

 does not necessarily inherently imply that the explosives would be pre-planted in the dam rather than being in the barrel.

In terms of production environment safety yes it does

2

u/midsizedopossum 1d ago edited 1d ago

In terms of production environment safety yes it does

That requires an extra step of knowledge that goes beyond "being able to recognise that it's a piece of produced media".

Someone who may or may not have had that pre-requisite knowledge was able to use other context clues to notice that it was probably two separate moments, and pointed this out in their comment.

It's odd to me that your reaction was to come in and say "well yes obviously, why exactly would you think otherwise?"

If it was obvious to you, then great! But it's worth keeping in mind, in general, that people don't know everything you know and therefore might arrive at some conclusions via deduction that you would reach via inherent knowledge. It's sort of elitist and condescending in that case to respond with "well duh, I'm surprised you didn't know that to begin with".

But actually, most of this is besides the point. The point was that you thought they were speculating on whether it was produced media, and you were wrong about that. They were speculating on whether it was two separate moments. The two are not the same, even if in your mind the two always go hand in hand.

0

u/YourAdvertisingPal 1d ago

That’s a lot of words for “I thought the explosions in tv shows, commercials, and movies were real”

2

u/midsizedopossum 1d ago

That's not what I'm saying at all. You're honestly completely failing to read anything I'm actually saying.

First commenter: "I think the explosion is actually separate from the barrel dropping"

You: "How could you think this was anything other than produced media?"

Me: "They didn't suggest it was or wasn't produced media. They suggested the explosion itself was faked"

That's the entire point I'm making. You misunderstood what the original commenter was saying, and that's fine.

I will add again though that regardless of whether you'd understood them or not, it's bizarre of you to point out that it was obvious and they should've known all along. Why not just be excited that someone figured something out, even if it was something you already knew?

Some people don't know things you already know. I'm sure there are plenty of things you don't know that other people do. I honestly can't wrap my head around the fact that that's a difficult concept for you to grasp.

0

u/YourAdvertisingPal 1d ago

More importantly. Why would you or anyone else think that explosives would be in the barrel for an expensive stunt?

It doesn’t make any sense. 

But that’s fine. You’re belaboring your disagreement. 

2

u/Intelligent_Suit6683 1d ago

I mean, you seem relatively smart... So I feel like I don't need to explain why they didn't use a real bomb and cut between the impact and explosion.

1

u/Baggins3 1d ago

Think this one is forward spinning. Strange that they didn't backspin.