'Bomber Crew', Episode 4, TONIGHT!

Steve (Hatton)
but I couldn’t say it never happened, just because I didn’t know.
You never stop learning!

Yes, you are right. Thankfully we never do stop learning. I would like to know more about the flour dropping training in Bomber Command. I’d never heard that it was a wide spread training method ( hence my early scepticism ) but would love to know more if it was. I just can’t imagine that chucking flour bombs out of an aircraft (and indeed particularly at the height shown ) would have been the way they would have trained the bomber command lads who would usually have dropped bombs at a much higher altitude (and usually at night) from the RAF heavy bombers. If you drop bombs at a higher altitude then surely have to take into account the affects that will make the bomb drift and where it will finally hit.

Like you said though Bomberboy, “I couldn’t say it never happened, just because I didn’t know”. I would like to know though if this was a standard technique of training.

Merry Christmas to you too.

Best Regards, Steve 🙂

ps- we need to cut down on the number of steves around here 😉

Would this be the same sort of emergency, or “accident” that caused a Victor to go supersonic? 🙂

I read somewhere recently (BBC web site I think) an account by an “erk” of a Whitley being looped over RAF Hooton Park. That must have been a sight! 😮

Bomberboy,

I have heard that story about the Lanc as well but without any confirmation. But it wouldn’t surprise me as the HP Hampden and Halifax both have been looped. According to “Hazel” the testpilot of Handley Page, it was sometimes normal practise to loop a Hampden during testing (perhaps if the pilot wanted some action). The same test pilot also mentioned that the Halifax had been looped but it was unclear under what kind of circumstances, I would suspect in an emergency.

Cheers

Cees

Steve (Hatton)

It’s funny how sometimes you think you have heard of something, but up to a point it’s only ever appeared to be a tale which might always be surfacing, but with no actual eyewitness evidence, documented or otherwise.

Then along comes someone that, gives you that evidence and for me one example that has always been a ‘tale’, is the Lanc doing a loop the loop.
Then during this programme, along comes a German fighter pilot who gives his own first hand eyewitness account of a Lanc doing a loop right in front of him to his amazement and subsequently to mine as well.
But I could never say that it never happened, even up to the point of hearing his account because I just didn’t know.

I have found over the years that if I have heard the same story over and over again, but told by completley different sources, then generally there is an element of truth about it.

I suppose what I am trying to say that, just because you have not seen or read about a particular thing or event, that does not mean to say it could not have been possible.
I have read another thread here about russian fighters supposedly shooting down german helicopters during the war………..well that’s all news and a surprise to me, but I couldn’t say it never happened, just because I didn’t know.
You never stop learning!

Merry x-mas to all

Bomberboy

Well I have read of two instances during the war where aircrews in training used flour bombs here in NZ. And they of course were almost all training to become part of Bomber Command. One of these instances was in the book by the lady I mentioned earlier whom I spoke with a few weeks back, Nona Morris. The other I am still trying to remember exactly where I read it, but it was also in the South Island, Wigram I think, and it was Harvards used I think. I have also read of prewar RNZAF (or maybe the earlier NZPAF) dropping flour bombs on an exercise instead of practise bombs.

So in a round about way, yes Bomber Command aircrew trained with flour bombs, but maybe or maybe not in Briatain. Definately in NZ under the Empire Air Training Scheme.

Incidentally in the early part of the war NZ had plenty of flour. Later on we were exporting loads of it to Britain, and the RNZAF and NZ Army troops formed special units during the summers of 1943/44 and 1944/45 to harvest the wheat as labour was so scarce!

I seem to think that prewar the 609 boys would drop them out of the sides of Harts and Hinds.

I haven’t watched Bomber Crew yet. Videod, but no time to view.

prewar use here but were they regularly used for training for bomber command in the second world war? I’d personally never heard of such use (hence my earlier doubtful statements on the point of the flour dropping in Bomber Crew) but would like to know if there was any.

best regards, steve

I seem to think that prewar the 609 boys would drop them out of the sides of Harts and Hinds.

I haven’t watched Bomber Crew yet. Videod, but no time to view.

As for the dropping of flour. I humbly accept any new info. Was it carried out in the same manner as in the show?

An occasional flour bombing prank against a rival squadron I can accept, but has anyone actually got any evidence that flour bags were routinely used for training purposes?

I have the A.P. for bomb carriers and nowhere are flour bags mentioned as ordinance. The R.A.F. appears to have had a suitable range of practice bombs that produced flashes and puffs of smoke, etc, so I cannot see bags of flour being of much use?

But then again, maybe it helps explain why we had to have food rationing – the brylcreem boys were dropping it all down at the bombing range!

609 were bombed with toilet rolls too once.

No idea how this kind of sortie was carried out though.

Steve Young,

I agree with you entirely and welcome your comments.

It also appears it’s not only the TV people that get the ‘facts’ wrong, facts which others pickup and then without realising, believe that it is now an ‘actual fact’.
I say this because somehow even in this Forum, this programme has now changed from being a ‘reality’ TV show with factual accounts/recollections and ‘contestants’, to a being ‘Factual Documentary’……This it most certainly isn’t and was never intended to be!
With all the experts/enthusiasts in this forum, in this particular subject, it shows how easily things get misconscrewed and it goes back to other threads where ‘what’s in a word’ can make all the difference, but can also be judged as being picky.
Even some of the items that are being discussed ie Bags of Flour, show that some know less than what they think they know and now berrate and disagree about, whilst others know it as a matter of fact.
So now as a matter of fact, having been shown on the programme and discussed through this forum, they have now learnt something, even if they do feel a little silly in making an issue out of it.

If everbody on this forum got together to make a programme, I guarantee you, it would go one of two ways.
1/ You would all have your own opinions that you would wish to see portrayed and if every opinion was covered in order to keep everybody happy, you would end up with a dinosoar of a programme which I’ve no doubt would be totally uninteresting to the vast majority of viewers.
Also you would not be happy with each others opinions and would end up exactly where you are now disagreeing with each other on what is & isn’t actual fact.
You would even disagree on what the programme format should be.
You cannot cover every accurate detail on a programme and keep it interesting.

2/ And this is morelikely to be the case.
you would disagree in certain areas and unless some of you compromised in these areas, the end result would be that you would never end up making the programme.
Don’t forget, the way discussion is here, even one compromise would not be acceptable.

If however you did all come to your senses and compromise with regards to certain areas in order that you could at least make a watchable programme, guess what you’d end up with………..that’s right……..Bomber Crew or the likes of.

Again, this kind of programme should be enjoyed for what it is, even with it’s mistakes.
It has highlighted some very important areas and raised the profile of vintage (particularly Warbirds) aviation, as well as injected a little revenue into a few bank accounts.

If it gauls individuals soooooo much, then they should switch channels and watch Eastenders or the like, or turn off altogether.
Then they would not be able to comment on the programme in the first place.

Bomberboy

Hi Bomberboy, admittedly I watched very little of the series, having seen enough to be highly irritated at it. I have to agree with Dave that it is easy for technical problems to alter the form of a film but a good documentary crew will have a sufficient amount of different coverage to guard against such eventualities. Also, there researchers should be able to check simple facts. I have little respect for a documentary that takes such a patronising approach to the viewer. The World at War shows what can be done.

As for the dropping of flour. I humbly accept any new info. Was it carried out in the same manner as in the show?

Damien B
“It’s TV for those with the attention span of a goldfish, and incredibly irritating”.

I totally agree, but unfortunately Damien, There are a lot of flippin Goldfish out there!

Bomberboy

Exactly Bomberboy,

That’s what I was trying to say in one of my points. A film crew like any group will be a mix of people who all have their own unique subjectivity. Just like us here. So compromises are made and facts omitted.

One point, Reality TV is factual documentary. It is just one style of making a documentary (a very cheap, nasty style that TV networks think is popular but it isn’t in reality!).

Although I would hate to think what the brave bomber crew veterans would think if someone said they were particiapnts in a ‘Reality TV show’ as opposed to a ‘documentary’.

Steve Young,

I agree with you entirely and welcome your comments.

It also appears it’s not only the TV people that get the ‘facts’ wrong, facts which others pickup and then without realising, believe that it is now an ‘actual fact’.
I say this because somehow even in this Forum, this programme has now changed from being a ‘reality’ TV show with factual accounts/recollections and ‘contestants’, to a being ‘Factual Documentary’……This it most certainly isn’t and was never intended to be!
With all the experts/enthusiasts in this forum, in this particular subject, it shows how easily things get misconscrewed and it goes back to other threads where ‘what’s in a word’ can make all the difference, but can also be judged as being picky.
Even some of the items that are being discussed ie Bags of Flour, show that some know less than what they think they know and now berrate and disagree about, whilst others know it as a matter of fact.
So now as a matter of fact, having been shown on the programme and discussed through this forum, they have now learnt something, even if they do feel a little silly in making an issue out of it.

If everbody on this forum got together to make a programme, I guarantee you, it would go one of two ways.
1/ You would all have your own opinions that you would wish to see portrayed and if every opinion was covered in order to keep everybody happy, you would end up with a dinosoar of a programme which I’ve no doubt would be totally uninteresting to the vast majority of viewers.
Also you would not be happy with each others opinions and would end up exactly where you are now disagreeing with each other on what is & isn’t actual fact.
You would even disagree on what the programme format should be.
You cannot cover every accurate detail on a programme and keep it interesting.

2/ And this is morelikely to be the case.
you would disagree in certain areas and unless some of you compromised in these areas, the end result would be that you would never end up making the programme.
Don’t forget, the way discussion is here, even one compromise would not be acceptable.

If however you did all come to your senses and compromise with regards to certain areas in order that you could at least make a watchable programme, guess what you’d end up with………..that’s right……..Bomber Crew or the likes of.

Again, this kind of programme should be enjoyed for what it is, even with it’s mistakes.
It has highlighted some very important areas and raised the profile of vintage (particularly Warbirds) aviation, as well as injected a little revenue into a few bank accounts.

If it gauls individuals soooooo much, then they should switch channels and watch Eastenders or the like, or turn off altogether.
Then they would not be able to comment on the programme in the first place.

Bomberboy

Trying to be completely unbiased since I have not had the privilege of seeing this series yet, I want to make a couple of points.

I have experience in making documentaries and I can tell you it is not easy. I don’t know the facts of this particular programme’s production but I can suggest that several points raised here could be down to technical issues that were not planned for.

Perhaps more footage was actually taken in Canada but found to be useless due to a myriad of technical issues. They can’t exactly go back and re-shoot when they’re on a tight TV budget and the aircraft is on tight flying hours, can they? The mention of the crewman from Sally B being narrated over could also have been down to an audio fault rather than rudeness, or perhapos a narrator could put the same statement more succinctly to cut it down in time. Perhaps – as I say, I don’t know.

But I do know that anything that can go wrong usually does, and it is usually up to the editor to save the day somehow with what is left of the good footage.

Bare in mind too that TV crews are a large and diverse bunch, most being as uninitiated in aviation history as the next guy. Even if there is an enthusiastic aviation fan driving a production, with so many people contributing to a doco things will be mis-interpreted, omitted or perhaps twisted slightly. These things happen in all productions. It is not like a book where one or two people focus on providing all the contents. Even the end credits won’t list everyone who contributed, they are just the main ones.

Another point, if a documentary omits to say something on a subject that you’ve read or know and think is important, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are deliberately hiding that fact from you. It was probably overlooked by their researchers or trimmed in editing for time and continuity. And the same goes for if you hear something in a documentary you haven’t heard before, it doesn’t necessarily make it untrue. It probably means you’ve just not heard of it!! A case in point:

Flour was used to train bomber crews. RNZAF pilots and crews also trained by dropping bags of flour. I was talking to an ex-WAAF only the other day who had been based at RNZAF Station Harewood, and the Airspeed Oxford pilots from RNZAF Wigram would often raid their station doing mock attacks. She once received a direct hit herself and was covered in flour. So it is certainly not fantasy!

And a Bomber Command medal was struck! I saw one recently, one of the Cambridge airmen brought it to the reunion I ran in November. However it wasn’t struck till within recent years, after a campaign to get it struck. And then, and this is what gauled this Air Bomber, they made them pay for it. Rotten sods. It was jolly expensive too, I think he said 50 pounds or something, in the 1980’s or so. He said most airmen said they could sod off, but he bought one because he felt he deserved it. I can try to find out more if you want. It is only little too.

And John C – don’t you dare bomb Thetford, that place is a Mecca for some of us, that’s where they filmed Dad’s Army from! 🙂

In my opinion ‘whinging’ is the only way those invested in certain fields of interest (rather than those with a superficial interest) can get the products that they want. The academics and the enthusiasts may represent a small proportion of the populist audience, but they are the ones who are willing to pay out for the DVDs, books and whatever other ancillary material is put out relating to the initial broadcast. The media are increasingly aware of this, hence things like the Lord of the Rings DVDs in ‘lite’ and ‘anorak’ editions.

I’ve never agreed with just tugging the forelock because a TV company has given us something that’s vaguely in the ballpark of what we’d really like. It’s perfectly possible to create a programme that works on multiple levels of interest and ability, just as it is with museum interpretation. Its just cheaper not to bother.

But you need to fire off your whinges to the production and broadcast companies for it to really count, and to bear in mind that you may well be ignored and fobbed off. Eventually though, something may come of it. Things do seem to have improved; the triumphalism of the old days has been somewhat moderated, and the 90s dumbing down is slowly lessening. I think.

Anyway, I’m at work; you ain’t seen me, roight?

In a word – YES! 😀 If they missed they’d have only got Thetford and that’s no great loss. :diablo:

That’s a very good point. I hadn’t considered that. Re-run, anyone…? :diablo:

I still think we as a group really need to make more of the lack of campaign medal – It’s a poor reflection on us as a nation not to recognise the survivors and the fallen.

It’s my soapbox and I’m going to use it.

JC

Seconded. I first heard about this a few years ago, and it’s always seemed to be particularly disrespectful. After all, in the dark days of 1939/40/41, the boys of Bomber Command, with their underpowered and underarmed machines, their political restraints, and their lack of any navigational aids, were the only arm of our services who took the war to the enemy.

Thing is, what do we do? An online petition like the one currently running in the US, trying to get Major Richard Winters upgraded to a Congressional Medal of Honour? Would such a thing work…?

Time to start a new thread on this subject I think…

Campaign medal? How about the Air Crew Europe Star?

Bags of flour? How the hell do you think real pilots trained? They used bags of flour frequently. And on boxing day they were used by malicious swine to bomb 609’s position on the rugby pitch at Manston…

I must admit that I did not know about their lack of a campaign or ‘war’ medal. So if nothing else this programme highlighted that. I agree that there should be something, they after all were only following orders, orders sanctioned at the very top level, and living each day as if it were their last, this is pretty poor.

The show iteself was certainly watchable, I agree that putting some veterans in the air would have been very appropriate.

I for one never get tired of the totally impressive sight of fortresses in formation contrailing their way to target……

What do you want them to do, rock up overhead Stanta with 1000 pounders???

In a word – YES! 😀 If they missed they’d have only got Thetford and that’s no great loss. :diablo:

I still think we as a group really need to make more of the lack of campaign medal – It’s a poor reflection on us as a nation not to recognise the survivors and the fallen.

It’s my soapbox and I’m going to use it.

JC