Talk:The Dam Busters (film)

Untitled
IMDb says the flying fortress was added by Warner Bros for the US market. Is this true or not? - Nommo —Preceding undated comment added by Nommonomanac (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 January 2003 (UTC)
 * It says this in my book of cult films too. Mintguy

In my "Rough guide to cult films" (and on IMDB) it says that the word "nigger" was over-dubbed for the US with the word "trigger", but that the morse code received in the ops room still said "nigger". However I found this page "MORSE GOES TO THE MOVIES" which says that the morse code said "goner". Now does this mean that this was the original morse code or that this may have been over-dubbed again. Anyone have the right answer to this? Mintguy —Preceding undated comment added by Mintguy (talk • contribs) 19:48, 10 February 2003 (UTC)
 * There were a number of different morse signals, 'goner' was bomb successfully away and 'nigger' was for the dam being breached. ²¹² —Preceding undated comment added by ²¹² (talk • contribs) 13:17, 16 May 2003 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Why was the page moved? Is the one-word title the correct title? If so, why does the text use two words? Tannin 12:42 16 May 2003 (UTC)
 * I move dto because I belive it is the correct title, I've fixed it in the text too. There is the chance I'm wrong, it seems to be quite arbitary whether it is one or two words - although the BBC agrees . ²¹² —Preceding undated comment added by ²¹² (talk • contribs) 13:17, 16 May 2003 (UTC)
 * Amazon.co.uk calls it The Dambusters, but with an image of a DVD box saying The Dam Busters . IMDb (not necessarily a reliable source) calls it The Dam Busters . --rbrwr —Preceding undated comment added by Rbrwr (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 May 2003 (UTC)
 * The 1951 book by Paul Brickhill is The Dam Busters —Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoOneTwo (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 May 2003 (UTC)

According to IMDB the correct original title is The Dam Busters and in the US it was titled The Dambusters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintguy (talk • contribs) 11:57, 17 May 2003 (UTC)
 * Halliwell's calls it The Dam Busters, too. --rbrwr —Preceding undated comment added by Rbrwr (talk • contribs) 12:20, 17 May 2003 (UTC)
 * Moved it back. Halliwells is pretty definitive, The film is inexplicably not listed in the Virgin Film Guide (a Christmas pressie), I already have 2001 Halliwells. Mintguy 12:50 17 May 2003 (UTC)

wrong scenerie
i've seen this film different times, and always when they attack the Ederdam the waldeck castle is on the wrong side, why ? WB should have used original foto's of the landscape. UP A 3/11 ACR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.174.160 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2004 (UTC)

Similar & Based On
The Americans are at it again. Here we find some nutcase sees a similarity between this movie and the Yavin Battle in Star Wars IV. Then at the page for Yavin one sees George Lucas in essence based his battle scenario on this movie. Which is not only conjecture but downright ridiculous.

It's time to ban Americans from Wiki. And if you need any further convincing, look only to the sample immediately below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.216.74 (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dialogue from "The Dam Busters":
 * Gibson: "How many guns do you think there are, Trevor?"
 * Trevor-Roper: "I'd say there are about ten guns - some in the field, and some in the tower."


 * Dialogue from "Star Wars: A New Hope":
 * Gold Leader: "How many guns do you think Gold Five?"
 * Gold Five: "I'd say 20 guns. Some on the surface, some on the tower."


 * Yeah, it's "downright ridiculous" to suggest that there are any similarities between "The Dam Busters" and "Star Wars: ANH". It's just a coincidence that George Lucas used almost the EXACT SAME DIALOGUE in his film as in this one...


 * Would you like some other "coincidences"?


 * The Dam Busters (DB): Planes attack in threes (not the usual twos or fours).
 * Star Wars (SW): X-Wing and Y-Wing fighters attack in threes.


 * DB: Aircraft fly at low level through a valley to the target.
 * SW: X/Y-Wings fly at low level through a trench to the target.


 * DB: Aircraft use a special weapon which must be dropped with great precision.
 * SW: X/Y-Wings use a special weapon which must be fired with great precision.


 * Add to that, the fact that George Lucas used clips from "The Dam Busters" while doing the rough edit for "Star Wars" (ie: before the special effects were complete), and the argument really starts to fall apart...


 * And, for the record, I am not American.
 * --Insley 02:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
This article once had a trivia section, which I thought was useful for a film article. I think trivia sections are valid content for an encyclopoedia if labelled so and we should re-install the one for this page. Comments? DocEss 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's called Production Notes but is just trivia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.46.155 (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Music Man Link?
I fail to see why there should be a link to the music man on this page, can someone please delete that? 82.5.75.13 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Try looking at the The Music Man (song) page. Granted, it is a bit tenuous, but there is a link. Nick Cooper 20:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but theres no mention of the song on this page... 82.5.75.13 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Avro Lincolns in the film
I've just checked Jonathan Falconer's exhaustive Filming The Dam Busters (Sutton Publishing, 2005), and although there are numberous references to the Avro Lincoln in its meticulous index, these are all in the context of Lincolns being based at RAF Hemsworth, at which the four Lancasters used in the film were based, and that the latter were flown by contemporary Lincoln crews. The crews were alternating between film work on the Lancasters and "regular" Lincoln sorties, so that they kept up to speed on "the day job." There's no suggestion that any of the Lincolns based at Hemswell were used deliberately, although Falconer notes that, "in the film a Lincoln or two can be seen on at least one occasion," at Scampton. He suggests this was accidental, as while no Lincolns were based there, it was at the time of film an Emergency Diversion Airfield, so may have had an unexpected "visitor." Checking the film, I'm presuming it's where the crews are driven out to their aircraft on the night of the mission. There is a continuous shot from a moving vehicle, looking backwards, in which - progressively - five four-engined bombers can be seen. Since the film-makers only had use of four Lancasters, one must be the Lincoln Falconer refers to. To me is seems to be the aircraft fully visible on the left of the start of the this shot, from the length and shape of the nose. (0:17:41 on the R2 DVD) Nick Cooper 23:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Right you are Nick. Count the number of aircraft in the picture and you get five. FWIW Bzuk 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Yep, that's the one. To me it looks like number 2 is a Lincoln, as the rest are clearly Lancasters. From what Falconer says, I suspect this is really just a case of there happening to be a Lincoln at Scampton on the day this scene was shot, and the director taking advantage of it in the extreme background. Only a certain number of aircraft were officially at the disposal of the film-makers, although they could make use of whatever else was there in the background, e.g. the Mosquito Wallis and Summers walk past earlier in the film. Nick Cooper 06:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Any Lincoln present should be easily recognised by its four-bladed propellers - most Lancasters had three-bladed ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Gibson's dog
The film is being shown on Channel 4, right at this moment and they have edited out the word "nigger" in all of the scenes in which it occurs. Perhaps the page should be updated to indicate that the film is now regularly (and probably only) shown with this word edited out. Jooler 17:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The DVD of the film as currently distributed by Netflix has Nigger as the name of the dog, but also shows a plane crashing into a hill at one of the dams, which the article says was added for the American release. The article is very muddled with respect to the dogs name, with discussion of it at numerous parts of the article. It should be consolidated. Edison (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Only one way round this problem for the remake as far as I can see - the dog needs to be referred to as "Tigger" by a character, but when another character tries to correct them, they get interrupted before they can pronounce the whole n-word.

I.e.:

Character 1: (playing with the dog) "Come on, Tigger! Here boy!" Character 2: ....Why'd you call him Tigger? His name is N-" (gets interrupted before he gets further than "Nuh" bit). Maybe an alarm or phone rings, or someone yells for an unrelated matter (yells at Character 2 his rank in order to get his attention -"Airman!"). Can't remember when the dog's name is said in the original - if it occurs near the bit (spoiler) when the dog gets run over, then character 2 can be interrupted by character 1 shouting "LOOK OUT!").

The other options being to leave out the dog's name entirely, leave out the dog entirely, or actually use the n-word (which seems to be the least best idea). I would put this on the discussion page of the remake, but I don't think wikipedia has a seperate page for the remake. --204.4.131.140 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that this page is for discussing the article, and not for general discussion about the film. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  14:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Screenplay
In the article it says that the film is based on the books by Paul Brickhill and Guy Gibson. Yet in the article on R. C. Sherriff it says that the film is based on the play The Long Sunset. I would imagine that on of these is wrong, altough I could not say which one Franny-K 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The R. C. Sherriff page deosn't say anything of the sort. Nick Cooper 13:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It does in the bibilography section it says that the play The Long Sunset was written in 1955 and was adapted as the The Dambusters Franny-K 17:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That just says that in 1955 he wrote the play The Long Sunset (which is about Rome) and the screenplay The Dam Busters. They have no relation whatsoever, they're just in adjacent columns.--Father Goose 18:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Image sizes
As per Manual_of_Style image size should not be specified on the page, except under special circumstances, that don't seem to hold here. If you like large images, set your own image preferences. What about those viewing the page on a slow connection? They would probably prefer that the page obeyed their image preferences. Rich257 (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the default image size is 180px, there's no reason why Redgrave should be hard-coded as 200px. Todd's picture doesn't need to be so big either.  However, it is hard to make out the detail in the "bombardier" picture at 180px, so I'd vote "special circumstances" on that one and default-size the other two.--Father Goose (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the bombadier picture really needs some size to show up well, down at thumb size it's just a dark blur. I agree that the Redgrave survives nicely at 180 as a picture, although in terms of layout it fills the whitespace nicely at 225.  I've dropped it down in any case.  The Todd picture is more problemantic.  It looks like it should be OK at thumb size, but in reality it just doesn't show up well at 180 or 200.  Eve 215 was somewhat lacking.  I've got it at 225.  I think these are really the minimum sizes to allow these images to display well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are potential issues of local display sizes here; if you're running at a high resolution without any kind of image-scaling, "thumbs" will look tiny indeed. I'm running at 1600x1200 but with images doubled, so everything looks okay.--Father Goose (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you go into that a little further? Everything I'm running is pretty vanilla, which, I think, simulates what the largest number of people who are likely to access Wikipedia on a casual basis would be running. Those people are my primary concern.  If Wikipedia is to become what I believe it is on the verge of being, the first choice of most people to grab some quick information when they need it, it needs to be presented in such a way that people who pop in will see good information, well presented.  (See my argument here) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for instance, my resolution is 1600x1200, I have text scaling set at 200%, and my default browser is Firefox. Image sizes on most of Wikipedia are just right with these settings.  However, I was surprised to find that, using Internet Explorer, it didn't scale the images by 200%, making all of the images way too small.  If I were running IE instead of Firefox regularly, by now I'd have increased the default size of thumbnails in my preferences to 350px or higher -- and the 225px settings you're advocating here would be too small.
 * Tweaking image sizes based on how it looks on your screen will not always produce a good result.--Father Goose (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly understand that -- although I run IE, I check many of my image layouts with Firefox to make sure they work with it as well. I'm not sure how to harmonize the concerns you're talking about with the need to have Wikipedia look good to the casual user, the kind of person who opens the box, plugs in the computer and starts using it, when they come to Wikipedia looking for information. The Early Adapters and Techno-geeks have either already accepted or rejected Wikipedia at this point, so the future success of the project will depend on hooking the casual user and having them spread word-of-mouth so that Wikipedia is the automatic first choice much as Google is for searching.  If I'm correct in that, then it's vital for the project that when they come to Wikipedia, they see good information well presented, and that's certainly not going to be the case if what they get is a bunch of tiny thumbnails scattered around the articles, neither enhancing the text nor helping the article flow for the eye. These issues obviously can't be solved here, they really need to be addressed at a deeper level, but that's only going to happen when folks take the visual aspects of articles more seriously, and don't deal with it as an afterthought. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  06:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it seriously. But as you say, it can't be solved here.  If the site should be optimized for the casual user -- and I agree that it should be -- then 180px is a) too small or b) appropriately small to make the site readily accessible to all readers (i.e., those on dial-up).  Given that users can click on images when they want to see more detail (I do so routinely), and that it's not hard to realize that you can do that (my dad did, and he's a computer dunce), settling on a small-image standard -- and sticking to the standard -- may be of greater service to the casual user than hard-coding sizes.
 * I'm not sure where the standard size of 180px was decided upon. Surely there must be somewhere to complain about it.--Father Goose (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the dial-up problem concerns me as well, which is one reason why I try to keep images as small as possible whenever I can, although I think we've turned a corner and more than half on the online population now has some sort of broadband. I agree that clicking through is an option, and I often opt for that solution when photos can't possibly be displayed large enough in the article to make them totally legible or clear, but while that's fine for a map, or a complex diagram, and a document, people shouldn't have to click through to see who a single person is or what the setting is on a screenshot -- they should be able to pick it up from the article. About 180 - this is Wikipedia, so I assume there's someone to complain to, whether or not it will do any good! :-> Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  11:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists
Where lists are appropriate, they should stay, but there is no need to have lists for the production notes. If there is no great big hue and cry, I will change the lists to the more standard paragraph form. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC).
 * I dunno, sometimes lists of stuff like that are easier to read, but if you want to have a go at prosifying it, I have no objection. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The real reason for not using lists is in heading off a very dedicated band of editors who had previously categorized lists as "trivia" and made a point of routinely removing them. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  11:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Remake Page
Is it time to start a new page for the '09 Remake, now that we have information such as the Weta Workshop, locations etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmfreak (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Difficult to say, really - it depends on if there's lots to say about it already, eg like Quantum of Solace, or whether most of it would be just speculation. It's usually best to wait at least until a trailer has been produced, which is a good indication of when filming has actually taken place. Bob talk 11:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ten Full-Size Lancasters - Really? The text says "Weta Workshop is making the models and special effects for the film and have made 10 life size Lancaster bombers.[10]" but the citation [10] is only a link to Weta Workshop's corporate website, and does not support the contention that ten live sized Lancasters have been made. Having recently stood next to a Lancaster I'm a little dubious they are going to make ten life sized. They will more likely make one or two and CGI film of them and of the one or two flying Lancs to look like an entire squadron. I've looked around in the website that the citation links to but while mentioning that the company will be working on Dam Busters, I cannot find a reference to any work having been done, and no mention of having built any Lancasters. Maybe I'm wrong and they have made ten, but the link provided is not evidence. (129.210.51.217 (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC))

"See also"
An editor is removing the link to "Dam Busters March" in the "See also" section, on the grounds that: "our policiy is quite clear, if a wikilink is in the article body as this link is (more than once even), then we DO NOT put that wikilink in the see also section" However, this turns out not to be the case, as this excerpt from Wikipedia:Layout indicates:

"A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical 'perfect article' are suitable to add to the 'See also' appendix of a less developed one.[5] Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in 'See also'; however, whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."

Clearly, this is a matter for consensus, and removing the link on the grounds that it violated policy is not correct. I suggest that the editor make the case for deleting this long-standing link in this section. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My editorial judgment and common sense lead me to believe that when the article already has an entire section for the "Dambusters March" and the article "Dambusters March" is linked to twice (with both a hatnote at the top of the section and in the very first sentence of the section), no purpose is served by including the link as a see also.  All the more so as our policies advise against doing just that.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the section, hatnote, and in-section link are plenty; no need for a further See also.--Father Goose (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also in agreement - the "See also" is pretty superfluous. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like consensus to me -- no more argument from this quarter. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Influence
Sorry, I did not make myself clear in my edit; I meant that the fact the the Dam Busters was referenced by Pink Floyd was evidence that the Dam Busters had a notable influence in popular culture, which is therefore surely relevant to a section dedicated to the Influence of the Dam Busters film? If there were perhaps any specific reason for getting rid of this information, I would welcome it, but I saw no such thing in edit 300216520 by 98.232.145.73 ... Gmfreak (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You still require some attribution of notability. Just because a rock group uses it for a fleeting moment in a video does not automatically instill legitimacy as a notable example of popular culture. Make your case further. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC).
 * The Dam Busters is the film being watched on television by Bob Geldof in a scene in the 1982 film The Wall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ground Filming
Somebody keeps adding words to the effect that 'some' ground scenes were shot at Scampton. This is simply not true. RAF Scampton in 1954 was in the process of detailed conversion to receive the highly classified V-Force aircraft and the Air Ministry refused point blank to permit ANY filming within the station. Nearby RAF Hemswell was offered instead. All of the interior and exterior ground filming took place within Hemswell. Hemswell still stands, with a basically unchanged road layout and most of the original buildings. There is not a single scene in the film that cannot be placed accurately within the Hemswell location. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fictionalisation or dramatisation?
A few weeks ago I queried the inclusion of the Lancaster in the article Aircraft in fiction, on the grounds that the "The Dam Busters" was not fiction but a dramatisation of real events. The view of one editor there was that only documentaries can be classed as non-fiction; the rest, including "The Dam Busters", are therefore fiction. This view prevailed by default, although no consensus was established. One opinion was expressed that a line needs to be drawn, but that it would be difficult to know where to draw it. What are the views here - is "The Dam Busters" fiction? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidently not since the Raid did occur and the aircraft were real. It is the prerogative of editors to state opinions but one lone editor should not hold sway. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Since its entry there describes it as a "dramatisation of the real-life raid", it's at least not misrepresenting it as total fiction. At the same time, it's probably fair to call Dam Busters fiction based on real events.  There are lots of other entries at Aircraft in fiction for dramatized versions of real-life events -- Memphis Belle, Enola Gay, etc.--Father Goose (talk)
 * The Aircraft in fiction article is an unusual one in that it seems to draw from other articles extant and at first reading I assumed it was about fictional aircraft. Perhaps the title should be "real aircraft appearing in fiction" or "actual aircraft in fiction". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but every title I can think of just seems more awkward than the current one. Fictional aircraft is the article with fictional aircraft, btw.--Father Goose (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved the article's explanation of "this is about real aircraft, for fictional aircraft see" into a hatnote. Hopefully that'll help.--Father Goose (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An unfortunate article anyway - IMHO it distracts productive editors from working on more useful articles. --TraceyR (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true of the entire encyclopedia. People work on the parts that interest them, and meanwhile a lot of really basic topics languish.  The only cure for that is to work on the basic topics.--Father Goose (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tightening
The recent exercise in editing actually eliminated a great deal of detail. Perhaps the first recourse is to go a bit slower and look for section changes to see if they are not contested. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC).

Dog's Name
Reading the 1952 Book "The Dam Busters," the author refers to the dog as "[redacted racial epithet]" not "Nigger." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.65.255 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 July 2013 ‎
 * That's because that change was made for the US edition; the original 1951 UK edition had the dog's real name. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, No such change was made, the anon is trolling with one racial epithet replacing another. Nigger's name is a very well established fact. Do not feed the trolls, please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The first American Ballantine books edition did make that change (i.e. to "Sambo"), whether you like (or know) it or not. This came out in 1952 (i.e. a year after the first UK edition), so presumably is the copy the IP has read. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this article is about the film, in which Nigger's name is Nigger. If you can provide a citation for this conjecture, then it should go into Nigger, but I see no reason why it should be mentioned here.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Barnes Wallis's daughter Elisabeth Gaunt has a cameo in the film
Barnes Wallis's daughters Mary Stopes-Roe and Elisabeth Gaunt were interviewed on The One Show this evening, and Elisabeth mentioned she has a small part in the film - they showed the clip and she's the photographer in the glass box lowered into the test tank, saying 'It's ok, I've got that alright'. Programme on iPlayer: at 26:14, segment from 24:03 - 28:02. 86.164.124.57 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Political slant?
Is it true that this film played a big part in rescuing the image of Bomber Command, remembering that no-one wanted to talk about the European bombing campaign for years, because the bombing of civilians was not regarded as something to celebrate? Valetude (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * RAF Bomber Command didn't need its image 'rescuing' as for the average Briton the Germans got what they deserved, the average adult Briton when the film was made still having recent memory of The Blitz, it is only in the last decade or so that sensibilities have become such that the 'image' of that organisation is questioned, almost entirely by people who were not even born at the time, and who had never had to be on the receiving end of the Luftwaffe.
 * For the normal RAF Bomber Command type of operation carried out for most of the latter part of the war one only needs to watch Appointment in London made around the same time as The Dam Busters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda in this movie.
All of the comments below can be confirmed here: Operation Chastise,

The most important aspect of this raid was to disrupt the supply of electricity to the factories. The damage to the factories themselves was secondary. The movie completely misses this point. It is made in the BBC "announcement" but is not emphasised. Near the end, when we see the model train being shover off its tracks, and the floods passing through various factories, these are shown to appear as being "important".

Much was made at the time this information was released that this was a "near surgical" strike with minimal loss of human life. That is simply not true. The Germans were not fools, they were anticipating raids on their dams, and thus kept the POWs and the factory workers below the dam height to discourage precisely this. As was made clear when the surviving aircrew was interviewed after the war, Butcher Harris' attitude was that the POWs and workers who would be drowned were mainly not British and therefore did not count. Now of course difficult though it is, such an approach in war is often necessary - pawns occasionally have to be sacrificed. But that is not how this raid was portrayed, and therein lies the propaganda.

The movie shows raids on only two dams. There was an attempted raid on a third, but embarrasingly, the bombers attacked the wrong lake.

The actual impact on German industry was minimal, with the dams being repaired and electrical power restored in a relatively short time. Yet the movie and its advertising came across as a heroic if tragic enormous success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.43.175 (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The film was made ten years after the war, and for the purpose of dramatic entertainment and not propaganda. It is fairly faithful to the book and to the historical record. 617 Squadron in fact attacked four dams, not three. McCarthy and Brown attacked the Sorpe, both achieving accurate drops, but this dam was an earth bank, less susceptible to the Wallis bomb and requiring a different method of attack, in which the bomber flew parallel to the dam and dropped the weapon unspun. The dam's crest did crumble as a result, and had it crumbled only a few inches further the water would have started to pour over and break the dam down. Townsend attacked the Ennepe dam without result, dropping the bomb short; it is not certain whether he attacked the nearby Bever dam by mistake, which could easily have happened in the misty conditions at that time. The Sorpe and Ennepe attacks are omitted in the film for dramatic reasons. The Germans did not position slave-worker camps or factories to deter attacks on dams. They had no notion that aircraft could break dams and, after the raid, they expended vast resources on improving the anti-aircraft defences at all their dams, besides the diversion of labour into rebuilding the dams themselves, which took months. The raid contributed, by creating difficulties over water and electricity suppy, to the overall effect of the RAF's 'Battle of the Ruhr'. Ruhr steel and coal production was severely cut in the second quarter of 1943 due to British air attacks including the Dams Raid. The Eder damburst destroyed an enormous area of first-class farmland by scouring away the topsoil, which was hardly convenient for the German war economy just then. The effect on civilian morale was also considerable and led Goebbels' propaganda ministry to claim that the raid was planned by a Jew. (See Victor Klemperer, The Klemperer Diaries 1933-1945, Phoenix Press, London, 2000, ISBN 1 84212 022 0, p.666 -- '21st May, Friday Morning... The last few days have been dominated by the river-dam business. First: the English have "criminally" bombed two dams (location not stated), very many civilian casualties. Then: it has been proved, proved by an English newspaper article, that this criminal plan was hatched by a Jew; it therefore belongs on the list of Jewish "misdeeds" and will, like the other Jewish crimes, be atoned for.' Klemperer, who was Jewish, is quoting the Nazi press ironically. The IP above is merely toeing the Goebbels line.) Albert Speer later wrote that the Dams Raid created a 'critical situation'. In both Britain and the US, newspaper front pages with Jerry Fray's 'before and after' pictures of the Moehne Dam caused a sensation. That the RAF could achieve such an extraordinary result with so few aircraft, and that the Luftwaffe could not stop them, was obviously very heartening (except to the Nazis). The New York Times wrote on 18 May, 'The RAF has secured another triumph. With unexampled daring, skill and ingenuity it has blasted two of Germany's important water dams which are vital parts of the whole industrial and transportation system of West Germany and has thereby delivered the single most devastating blow dealt from the air... All Americans will join with Sir Archibald Sinclair [Secretary of State for Air] in congratulating Wing Commander GP Gibson on his feat and mourn with him the loss of the eight aircraft and their gallant crews in the enterprise.' The same day, CBS Radio's Howard Smith, reporting from Berne, called the operation 'one of the most daring and devastating raids of the war.' (John Sweetman, The Dambusters Raid, Cassell, London, 2002, ISBN 13 978-0-3043-5173-2, pp.241-2.) The raid was in fact the most destructive single air attack in history up to that point: more destructive in lives and property than the 1,000-bomber raid on Cologne a year earlier. All this with a single squadron of Lancasters. Churchill referred to the raid in his well-received address to Congress on 19 May. The film, and the raid itself, remain so embedded in American popular culture that every media-savvy American knows how Lucas copied the Moehne attack sequence in the first Star Wars film. All warfare is psychological warfare and the film quite correctly depicts the success of the raid in those terms. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on The Dam Busters (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094233/http://www.wetanz.com/holics/index.php?itemid=179&catid=2 to http://www.wetanz.com/holics/index.php?itemid=179&catid=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091006033632/http://www.wetanz.com/vehicles to http://www.wetanz.com/vehicles/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hemswell
I have no idea why the article claims that Guy Gibson's last posting was to Hemswell. It wasn't. I don't think he was ever at Hemswell. His last posting was to Coningsby, as a staff officer. He took off from Coningsby on his last sortie, using a Mosquito B XX borrowed from 627 Squadron at nearby Woodhall Spa. (Susan Ottaway, Dambuster: A Life of Guy Gibson VC DSO* DFC*, Pen & Sword, Barnsley, 2007, ISBN 978 84415 6 054, pp.150, 157-8.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Ground effect
I'm sure I have read somewhere that Richard Todd had to learn how to taxy a Lancaster for the film. Should it be included in the article and if so, does it require a source? Or would be dismissed as trivia?

I don't know if footage of him doing so (taxying), was ever used. RASAM (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The wrong squadrons are credited with doing the flying sequences.
The article refers to the planes in the film being flown by Canberra pilots. Apart from the fact that this makes no sense, when the RAF still had active Avro Lincoln squadrons whose pilots were ideally suited to flying Lancasters, I know that the planes were flown by crews from 83 and 97 Lincoln squadrons. My father was a Lincoln pilot in 83 squadron at that time. 46.69.229.242 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)