Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-15-2010, 10:38 PM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 60,208
The Dam Busters (Peter Jackson)

Any news on Peter Jackson's remake of The Dam Busters?
  #2  
Old 10-15-2010, 10:47 PM
GuanoLad's Avatar
GuanoLad GuanoLad is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Where the wild roses grow
Posts: 24,470
Last I heard the script that Stephen Fry wrote for it was being reworked, and visual effects tests were being done. But that was second hand news, several months ago.
  #3  
Old 10-16-2010, 07:55 AM
BrotherCadfael BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,065
What will they call the commander's dog?
  #4  
Old 10-16-2010, 11:46 AM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 60,208
I would prefer that he be historically accurate. At the time and place, the word wasn't especially derogatory. In British usage it just meant 'dark-skinned foreigners'. But I don't think he can get away with using it today.
  #5  
Old 10-16-2010, 04:58 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
What will they call the commander's dog?
That was going to be my question too!
  #6  
Old 10-16-2010, 05:28 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
What will they call the commander's dog?
The Wikipedia indicates that "Nigsy" might be what they'll go ahead with.

Works for me. For people who know what the dog was actually named, it's close enough that it seems accurate. For people who don't know, it won't be a distraction.

On the other hand, a modern equivalent like Blacky would probably be sufficiently accurate -- it's just using modern language instead of period.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 10-16-2010 at 05:30 PM.
  #7  
Old 10-16-2010, 06:16 PM
gaffa gaffa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuanoLad View Post
Last I heard the script that Stephen Fry wrote for it was being reworked...
Why do I get the impression that if Shakespeare were alive today and writing movies, he'd be told "Bill! We love the script! It's perfect! Now we're gonna get Akiva Goldman to do a polish on it..."
  #8  
Old 10-17-2010, 10:43 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,347
Jackson will be doing the two Hobbit movies for sure now, and probably before The Dam Busters.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010...ng-the-hobbit/
  #9  
Old 10-17-2010, 10:48 PM
GuanoLad's Avatar
GuanoLad GuanoLad is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Where the wild roses grow
Posts: 24,470
Jackson wasn't slated to Direct, but Produce. The intended Director was Christian Rivers.
  #10  
Old 10-17-2010, 10:59 PM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 60,208
As long as it's directed well.
  #11  
Old 12-29-2018, 09:39 AM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 60,208
Bump.

Sir Peter Jackson on why it's chocks away for the Dam Busters movie
Quote:
Peter Jackson has his sights back on his movie about the Dam Busters raids which he has been hoping to make for 15 years.

He tells The Listener that the movie... is back on the cards in an interview in the magazine’s latest issue....

“We've got the rights for two or three more years,” Jackson told The Listener. “I would be very surprised if you talk to me three years from now and the film hasn't been made....

Jackson acknowledges that the positive reception for recent World War II movies Darkest Hour and Dunkirk may help the film finally take flight. Replicas of Lancaster bombers, which launched bouncing bombs against the dams, have already been built.
  #12  
Old 12-29-2018, 11:16 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,651
The dog has been replaced by a pet badger named Orville.
  #13  
Old 12-29-2018, 11:44 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,155
The dog is a white, black, and brown beagle, called Progress.
  #14  
Old 12-29-2018, 12:04 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,155
I hope they keep the theme music. Like the Star Wars theme, half the effect of the movie depends on it.
  #15  
Old 12-30-2018, 11:46 AM
yendis yendis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
His reference to having the rights for three more years is weird. You don't need to use Brickhill's book to dramatise Operation Chastise there are other sources available. It's a historical event for goodness sake anybody can turn it into a movie.
  #16  
Old 12-30-2018, 11:51 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,347
Hope they do it! Here's Wiki on the remake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da..._(film)#Remake
  #17  
Old 12-30-2018, 02:19 PM
Mk VII Mk VII is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 2,835
The name is important intellectual property which you would probably want to use if you can, and if you don't buy the rights to SOMEBODY's book on the subject they will probably try to sue. You can't do it all from public domain sources.
  #18  
Old 12-31-2018, 07:30 AM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
What will they call the commander's dog?
Why mention his name at all? It should be possible to show the dog around, without ever speaking the word. Then you could have dialogue like:

Wallis: "What shall be the code for mission success?"
Commander: "How about my dog's name?"
Wallis : "Good idea, sir."
[...]

Pilot: Dam destroyed. Send the signal.

[Radio operator begins to operate the radio
Scene cut to female radio operator at base, hears the signal over her headphones. Look of joy comes over her face. Runs to tell the commander.]

Radio operator: "Sir, we have received the signal. Mission success."

Do it cleverly enough, and people might not even notice that the word is never actually spoken.
  #19  
Old 12-31-2018, 07:39 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leaving pretty soon...
Posts: 24,936
A good idea, Peter. That would be acting niggardly in using the dog’s name.
  #20  
Old 12-31-2018, 02:34 PM
Lantern Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,867
I am always up for war films made with 21st century technology. The Dambusters combines scientific ingenuity and military daring like few other stories and I would love to see the final flying sequences in Imax 3D. And yes that theme music wonderfully evokes an old-fashioned Britishness and I hope they make use of it in some way.

I wonder if the film will address the moral complexity of the attacks, which killed hundreds of civilians and would have been illegal after changes in the 1949 Geneva conventions.
  #21  
Old 12-31-2018, 05:18 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
Why mention his name at all? It should be possible to show the dog around, without ever speaking the word. Then you could have dialogue like:

Wallis: "What shall be the code for mission success?"
Commander: "How about my dog's name?"
Wallis : "Good idea, sir."
[...]

Pilot: Dam destroyed. Send the signal.

[Radio operator begins to operate the radio
Scene cut to female radio operator at base, hears the signal over her headphones. Look of joy comes over her face. Runs to tell the commander.]

Radio operator: "Sir, we have received the signal. Mission success."

Do it cleverly enough, and people might not even notice that the word is never actually spoken.
Its already brought up in every article about the movie. Why ignore it? People will notice. Last I heard they are going to call the dog Digger and change nothing else.
  #22  
Old 12-31-2018, 06:12 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,036
I love how the question on everybody's lips the moment they hear about this film is, "What'll they call the dog?"
  #23  
Old 12-31-2018, 06:24 PM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 26,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
Jackson will be doing the two Hobbit movies for sure now, and probably before The Dam Busters.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010...ng-the-hobbit/
Why the hell would they want to make two more Hobbit... wait, what? Zombies, you say?

Okay, a Hobbit Zombie movie might work, but certainly not two of them.
  #24  
Old 12-31-2018, 08:16 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
I love how the question on everybody's lips the moment they hear about this film is, "What'll they call the dog?"
Watch the original trailer in post #14. The dog’s name is right in the trailer.
  #25  
Old 01-01-2019, 12:44 AM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Watch the original trailer in post #14. The dog’s name is right in the trailer.
Look at the earlier posts, starting at Post #3. This is an elderly thread and both times I opened it with the intention of asking, only to find myself late to the party.
  #26  
Old 01-01-2019, 12:49 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
I wonder if the film will address the moral complexity of the attacks, which killed hundreds of civilians and would have been illegal after changes in the 1949 Geneva conventions.
It was a non-issue in 1943.

You seem to be forgetting the extensive German bombing raids on British cities, resulting in high civilian casualties. Apart from London, which was the main target, Germany bombed Liverpool, Hull, Bristol, Cardiff, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Southampton, Swansea, Birmingham, Belfast, Glasgow, Manchester, Sheffield, and Coventry. Not to mention the high civilian casualties everywhere in Europe and the Soviet Union where there was fighting.

A major industrial area like the Ruhr Valley was considered a legitimate target, and there was no debate about it.
  #27  
Old 01-01-2019, 06:58 AM
Lantern Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,867
Yes it was largely a non-issue at the time. However when one makes a film about another era, one doesn't normally accept its norms at face value.
For example, Japanese-American internment was widely accepted in the US at the time but a film about it made today
would obviously not share that outlook.

Last edited by Lantern; 01-01-2019 at 06:59 AM.
  #28  
Old 01-01-2019, 08:21 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,155
I don't think it was wrong under the circumstances, even by modern standards.

In a total war, where you are fighting for survival, damaging the enemy's capacity to manufacture armaments is crucial.

If the Allies had refused to bomb shipyards, harbours, factories, airports, railways, oil production facilities, etc. because civilians might have been killed, while the Germans had no such scruples, Allied casualties - both military and civilian - would have been far higher. The war would have lasted much longer. Millions more would have died in German concentration camps and prisoner of war camps. About 5 million prisoners of war died anyway, in German and Japanese prison camps. So much for the Geneva Convention.

There are a few incidents, like the fire-bombing of Dresden and the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan, that are controversial today. But nobody, even today, is saying that armaments factories shouldn't have been attacked.
  #29  
Old 01-01-2019, 08:52 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,411
I'll be happy with just a really good performance of Eric Coates' "Dam Busters March" over the credits, not that tinny studio version in the original. It's one of the most soaring and inspiring compositions every written IMHO, and deserves to be better known.

Also, Jackson had better use real Lancs (a couple still fly), not CGI. The graphics software is a lot better than it used to be but you can still tell.
  #30  
Old 01-01-2019, 09:05 AM
Baker Baker is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tottering-on-the-Brink
Posts: 19,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Yes it was largely a non-issue at the time. However when one makes a film about another era, one doesn't normally accept its norms at face value.
For example, Japanese-American internment was widely accepted in the US at the time but a film about it made today
would obviously not share that outlook.
Bolding mine

It was also accepted in Canada. How would a Canadian citizens' outlook be?
  #31  
Old 01-01-2019, 09:47 AM
Lantern Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
I don't think it was wrong under the circumstances, even by modern standards.
By modern standards, this operation would almost certainly be considered a war crime and any leader who authorized it would be in serious danger of a war crime trial.
This was not an operation where there "might" be civilian casualties but one where massive civilian casualties were guaranteed and did in fact happen. And in fact the military value of the attack was fairly limited and the dams were repaired quite quickly.
  #32  
Old 01-01-2019, 10:17 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,411
It's been a long time since there were any such things as civilians in a war, hasn't it? As for the raid's not having the strategic value that was expected, that hardly makes it a war crime.

As for the dog's name, if it has to have one, use "Blackie" or something similar. If anyone complains, Jackson can say "You know why. Next question?"
  #33  
Old 01-01-2019, 11:06 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
By modern standards, this operation would almost certainly be considered a war crime and any leader who authorized it would be in serious danger of a war crime trial.
This was not an operation where there "might" be civilian casualties but one where massive civilian casualties were guaranteed and did in fact happen. And in fact the military value of the attack was fairly limited and the dams were repaired quite quickly.
You haven't answered any of the points I raised, or put forward any facts to justify your opinion.

Sorry, but that kind of over-refined chivalry by one side in WW2 would have been simply crazy by any standards. It was a war of self-defence and survival against an utterly immoral, viciously aggressive, mass-murdering slave-empire. It was not a 'civilised' or limited war, or a war between moral equals.
  #34  
Old 01-01-2019, 11:30 AM
Lantern Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,867
Your points, which are really just unsupported assertions, aren't relevant to my claim which is that by modern standards the operation would have been considered a war crime. A simple perusal of the 1949 Geneva Conventions is sufficient to establish that.
  #35  
Old 01-01-2019, 12:09 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
Your points, which are really just unsupported assertions, aren't relevant to my claim which is that by modern standards the operation would have been considered a war crime. A simple perusal of the 1949 Geneva Conventions is sufficient to establish that.
I don't believe that's the case. If you claim it is, then cite the relevant passages. Don't expect me to do your research for you.

However, IMO this whole argument is pretty irrelevant to the forthcoming movie.
  #36  
Old 01-01-2019, 12:34 PM
brossa brossa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,029
According to the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.":

"...Art 56. Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces

1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.

2. The special protection against attack provided by paragraph 1 shall cease:
(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(b) for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(c) for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support..."

Took about 15 seconds to find.
  #37  
Old 01-01-2019, 12:35 PM
Lantern Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,867
Article 56 of the Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions says:
"Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population"
  #38  
Old 01-01-2019, 12:39 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,728
For ordinary bombing, the accuracy of the day didn't allow for targets much smaller than cities. If you wanted to bomb a weapons factory (a legitimate target even by modern standards), pretty much the only way to do it was by targeting the city the factories were in.

The dam raids had smaller targets, but they were also much more difficult and risky. And you have to weigh the results of the dambusting raids against the results of other methods of attack.
  #39  
Old 01-01-2019, 12:42 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,728
OK, those two quotes of the Geneva Conventions snuck in before my post. I'm surprised about nuclear facilities not being valid targets: They give an exception for where their electrical production is mostly used for military purposes, but there are a lot of ways you can use a nuclear facility for dual purposes, both producing civilian electricity and supporting a nuclear weapons program. Surely, a breeder reactor should be considered a legitimate military target?
  #40  
Old 01-01-2019, 12:58 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,155
Thanks to brossa.

"... in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;"

This applies.
  #41  
Old 01-01-2019, 01:20 PM
brossa brossa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,029
"(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;"

only if it is used for other than its normal function
regular, significant, and direct support

Does not apply.
  #42  
Old 01-01-2019, 02:01 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by brossa View Post
"(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;"

only if it is used for other than its normal function
regular, significant, and direct support

Does not apply.
• The dams were used "for other than their normal function", i.e. they were used to generate power for manufacturing large quantities of war supplies.
• "Regular, significant, and direct support of military operations" - beyond all doubt.

Do you think all the regular bombing raids on the Ruhr were also unacceptable?

The dam busters raid didn't have as much effect as they hoped, but according to Wikipedia:

Quote:
In his study of the German war economy, Adam Tooze stated that during the Battle of the Ruhr, Bomber Command severely disrupted German production. Steel production fell by 200,000 tons. The armaments industry was facing a steel shortfall of 400,000 tons. After doubling production in 1942, production of steel increased only by 20 percent in 1943. Hitler and Speer were forced to cut planned increases in production. This disruption resulted in the Zulieferungskrise (sub-components crisis). The increase of aircraft production for the Luftwaffe also came to an abrupt halt. Monthly production failed to increase between July 1943 and March 1944. "Bomber Command had stopped Speer's armaments miracle in its tracks".[24]

At Essen after more than 3,000 sorties and the loss of 138 aircraft, the "Krupp works...and the town...itself contained large areas of devastation", and Krupp never restarted locomotive production after the second March raid.[4]
Should they have refrained from all that bombing, because of civilian and forced labour casualties?

Last edited by GreenWyvern; 01-01-2019 at 02:04 PM.
  #43  
Old 01-01-2019, 02:18 PM
Lantern Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,867
If generating electricity which, among others uses, is used in factories which produce arms counts as direct military support, the term loses all meaning. Virtually any piece of infrastructure in a country which is at war could be construed as providing such support and large parts of the Geneva convention would be rendered meaningless.
  #44  
Old 01-01-2019, 03:48 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,728
I think what it comes down to is that every country will claim that their targets were significantly-enough military, and the people being bombed will claim that they weren't, and the matter will end up getting resolved by who has the greater capability to enforce their interpretation. Which, ultimately, isn't much different from the situation without the Conventions.
  #45  
Old 01-01-2019, 04:34 PM
Baker Baker is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tottering-on-the-Brink
Posts: 19,761
I think the music starts at about 2:20 here. And the video gets QEII an IMDb credit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AS-dCdYZbo&t=135s
  #46  
Old 01-01-2019, 05:35 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,347
Probably none of HM's corgis would be called "Blackie"... or anything like it.
  #47  
Old 01-04-2019, 02:53 AM
HyacinthBucket HyacinthBucket is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 137
Just a side note to point out again that not all the places bombed by the Germans were military - a friend who lives in Wick, one of the Scottish towns mentioned in the article, told me about this a while back. The town still holds a memorial service every year on the anniversary of the bombing:

"Scotland's smaller air raids during World War Two

"... In total, there were more than 500 German air raids on Scotland - ranging from single aircraft hit-and-runs, to mass bombings by 240 planes.

During the air war in Scotland, 2,500 people died and 8,000 were injured.

What may well have been the first random attack directed at civilians on the British mainland - rather than a military target such as Scapa Flow or the Rosyth docks - took place in Wick on 1 July 1940.

Several died in an unexpected attack on the harbour. Part of the bombsite was only finally redeveloped a few years ago..."


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland...-west-34845284


Then, as now, the only landmark in Wick of any international import was the Old Pulteney Distillery.
__________________
"When I invite a woman to dinner, I expect her to look at my face. That's the price she has to pay."
Otis B. Driftwood

Last edited by HyacinthBucket; 01-04-2019 at 02:53 AM.
  #48  
Old 01-08-2019, 05:43 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
For ordinary bombing, the accuracy of the day didn't allow for targets much smaller than cities. If you wanted to bomb a weapons factory (a legitimate target even by modern standards), pretty much the only way to do it was by targeting the city the factories were in.
At night. The 8th AF was more accurate during the daytime, although they were still wildly indiscriminate by modern standards.

What they'd do was have the lead bomber in a formation use the bombsight, and the other bombers, keeping a tight formation, would just drop when he did.

This could be pretty accurate, believe it or not.

So still pretty indiscriminate, in that the bombs were dropped as a formation en masse, but more accurate than the Bomber Command method of just bombing city centers deliberately.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017