Audio recording of RAF Lancaster under nightfighter attack

[Stolly]

As far as i know this is authentic.

Does anyone know anymore about this ?

Is it indeed authentic ?

http://www.stolly.org.uk/lanc.wav

Its a 400k wav file.

[Brian]

Sounds fake - too calm - even considering the Brit resolve.


"Stolly" > wrote in message
...
> As far as i know this is authentic.
>
> Does anyone know anymore about this ?
>
> Is it indeed authentic ?
>
> http://www.stolly.org.uk/lanc.wav
>
> Its a 400k wav file.
>
>

[Richard Brooks]

Stolly wrote:
> As far as i know this is authentic.
>
> Does anyone know anymore about this ?
>
> Is it indeed authentic ?
>
> http://www.stolly.org.uk/lanc.wav
>
> Its a 400k wav file.

Dunno but there is an archiving service by the IWM and they'll fill a CD-R
with stuff you ask for, for about a tenner which is very cheap.

All that wartime recording by in-the-field news gatherers can be yours for
little money!


Richard.

[Stolly]

really, how do you go about arranging that, can you do it via the web or do
you have to go there ?
"Richard Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> Stolly wrote:
> > As far as i know this is authentic.
> >
> > Does anyone know anymore about this ?
> >
> > Is it indeed authentic ?
> >
> > http://www.stolly.org.uk/lanc.wav
> >
> > Its a 400k wav file.
>
> Dunno but there is an archiving service by the IWM and they'll fill a CD-R
> with stuff you ask for, for about a tenner which is very cheap.
>
> All that wartime recording by in-the-field news gatherers can be yours for
> little money!
>
>
> Richard.
>
>

[Stolly]

I was just having a discussion with my father about this the other day.

He was fighting with the British Army in Malaya while the US was in Vietnam
around 1965 and said that the contrast between the radio discipline used by
the RAF Hunter pilots on ground attack missions was like the difference
between night and day compared to the US pilots flying similar missions over
Vietnam.

Malaya was close enough to pick up the US comms coming out of Vietnam.

He said "Our Hunter pilots were Target 2 miles. Diving now, Tally ho" (yes
they actually said Tally ho) "the Yanks were shouting and swearing about
ground fire this and f*cking that"

So the discipline on the recording is in character, according to my father.


"Brian" > wrote in message
et...
> Sounds fake - too calm - even considering the Brit resolve.
>
>
> "Stolly" > wrote in message
> ...
> > As far as i know this is authentic.
> >
> > Does anyone know anymore about this ?
> >
> > Is it indeed authentic ?
> >
> > http://www.stolly.org.uk/lanc.wav
> >
> > Its a 400k wav file.
> >
> >
>
>

[Richard Brooks]

Stolly wrote:
> really, how do you go about arranging that, can you do it via the web
> or do you have to go there ?

Well, it was all because I missed a copy of The Golden Hour LP entitled
Aeroplanes of World War II which I had lent to someone and never got it
back, you know the score.

Anyway, as the source of the LP was from IWM recordins I telephoned the
Imperial War Museum and a very nice woman told me that they had a service
where you could mention the stuff you wanted and they'd slap half an hours
stuff on a CD for a fiver or an hours stuff for a tenner. Or you could go
there and listen through then select what you want.

I've got some leaflet in a folder somewhere and shall dig it out for you,


Richard.




> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Stolly wrote:
>>> As far as i know this is authentic.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know anymore about this ?
>>>
>>> Is it indeed authentic ?
>>>
>>> http://www.stolly.org.uk/lanc.wav
>>>
>>> Its a 400k wav file.
>>
>> Dunno but there is an archiving service by the IWM and they'll fill
>> a CD-R with stuff you ask for, for about a tenner which is very
>> cheap.
>>
>> All that wartime recording by in-the-field news gatherers can be
>> yours for little money!
>>
>>
>> Richard.

[Richard Brooks]

Stolly wrote:
> really, how do you go about arranging that, can you do it via the web
> or do you have to go there ?

I wonder if the last paragaph is what it refers to ?
http://www.iwm.org.uk/shopping/publicate.htm

Anyway, I can't find the leaflet right now but on a yellow Post-It note I've
found IWM 0207 416 5000 Sound Records - Rosemary.

Richard.


> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Stolly wrote:
>>> As far as i know this is authentic.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know anymore about this ?
>>>
>>> Is it indeed authentic ?
>>>
>>> http://www.stolly.org.uk/lanc.wav
>>>
>>> Its a 400k wav file.
>>
>> Dunno but there is an archiving service by the IWM and they'll fill
>> a CD-R with stuff you ask for, for about a tenner which is very
>> cheap.
>>
>> All that wartime recording by in-the-field news gatherers can be
>> yours for little money!
>>
>>
>> Richard.

[Richard Brooks]

Richard Brooks wrote:
> Stolly wrote:
>> really, how do you go about arranging that, can you do it via the web
>> or do you have to go there ?
>
> Well, it was all because I missed a copy of The Golden Hour LP
> entitled Aeroplanes of World War II which I had lent to someone and
> never got it back, you know the score.

I should have stated correctly "Sounds of the Aeroplane at War 1939 - 1945"

If you can grab a copy of that you'll be very lucky. I've burned onto CD my
own copy from some crappy old tapes that a guy was selling at Biggin Hill
some years back and he got them from the BBC archives when they were
throwing their records out.

Richard.


Richard.

[Dave Holford]

Stolly wrote:
>
> As far as i know this is authentic.
>
> Does anyone know anymore about this ?
>
> Is it indeed authentic ?
>
> http://www.stolly.org.uk/lanc.wav
>
> Its a 400k wav file.


How was this recording made?

Dave

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Richard Brooks
> writes
>Stolly wrote:
>> really, how do you go about arranging that, can you do it via the web
>> or do you have to go there ?
>
>I wonder if the last paragaph is what it refers to ?
>http://www.iwm.org.uk/shopping/publicate.htm
>
>Anyway, I can't find the leaflet right now but on a yellow Post-It note I've
>found IWM 0207 416 5000 Sound Records - Rosemary.
>
>Richard.
>
>
>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> Stolly wrote:
>>>> As far as i know this is authentic.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know anymore about this ?
>>>>
>>>> Is it indeed authentic ?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.stolly.org.uk/lanc.wav
>>>>
>>>> Its a 400k wav file.
>>>
>>> Dunno but there is an archiving service by the IWM and they'll fill
>>> a CD-R with stuff you ask for, for about a tenner which is very
>>> cheap.
>>>
>>> All that wartime recording by in-the-field news gatherers can be
>>> yours for little money!

There was a famous recording made by Richard Dimbleby(?) in a Lancaster
over Germany.

The Germans were alleged to have broadcast live from a bomber over
London, but I don't think that would be in the IWM.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Richard Brooks]

M. J. Powell wrote:
> In message >, Richard Brooks
> > writes
>> Stolly wrote:
>>> really, how do you go about arranging that, can you do it via the
>>> web
>>> or do you have to go there ?
>>
>> I wonder if the last paragaph is what it refers to ?
>> http://www.iwm.org.uk/shopping/publicate.htm
>>
>> Anyway, I can't find the leaflet right now but on a yellow Post-It
>> note I've found IWM 0207 416 5000 Sound Records - Rosemary.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>
>>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>> Stolly wrote:
>>>>> As far as i know this is authentic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone know anymore about this ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it indeed authentic ?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.stolly.org.uk/lanc.wav
>>>>>
>>>>> Its a 400k wav file.
>>>>
>>>> Dunno but there is an archiving service by the IWM and they'll fill
>>>> a CD-R with stuff you ask for, for about a tenner which is very
>>>> cheap.
>>>>
>>>> All that wartime recording by in-the-field news gatherers can be
>>>> yours for little money!
>
> There was a famous recording made by Richard Dimbleby(?) in a
> Lancaster
> over Germany.
>
> The Germans were alleged to have broadcast live from a bomber over
> London, but I don't think that would be in the IWM.
>
> Mike

Dunno but the record does have on side one, a sound track of a Do17 taxiing
and taking off, recorded internally. What a bloody awful noise that was.

The more interesting and the longest track is of a single Me109 starting up,
taking off and buzzing the recordist a couple of times, then there are
several pairs of Me109s taking off, same with He111s taking off and finally
the whole lot approaching from some distance away. All starts quiet with a
bird singing in the foreground then lots and lots of aircraft flying over
then all fades out. After a while the bird starts singing again. I think
the track is called "Bound for London."

Richard.

[av8r]

Hi Brian

This whole thing stinks. Couple of points:

The Nav says half a minute to go..for what, the I.P. because later the
bomb aimer says the bombs going in about a minute. In the meantime
someone (the Nav?) is saying keep weaving.

The R.A.F. used the term Bomb Aimer NOT Bombardier. BTW, you never here
the Bomb Aimer say 'Bombs Gone'

There was no drone of engines in the background even with the pilot and
other crew members talking with O2 masks on you would have heard
something.

All the wartime R.C.A.F. and R.A.F. pilots I know, used individual names
of their crew versus crew position when calling them on the intercom.

The skipper asks the engineer to put the revs up. To what RPM?

The recording device would have been connected to the intercom system.
Only one person can talk at a time yet we here a number of the crew
cheering over the supposed shoot down of a unidentified Luftwaffe
aircraft. I don't think they had hot mikes back then.
Maybe our resident Lanc F/E Gord Beaman can answer that question.

How could the pilot see the aircraft going down, as it would be well
behind him by the time he says anything about it, even if the aircraft
had been shot down while making a head on attack.

There are other things that don't sound right but I'll leave it at that
for now.

Cheers...Chris

[Stolly]

FYI with the help of a number of other people we have proved this recording
to be authenic.

"Wynford Vaughn Thomas did a trip to Berlin on 3 Sep 1943 to make the famous
BBC recording, broadcast in the Home Service on 4th September 1943 and many
times since, of a Lancaster crew on a bombing raid. This included the
shooting down of an attacking fighter"

Discussion thread here

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97116&perpage=50&pagenumber=1

"av8r" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Brian
>
> This whole thing stinks. Couple of points:
>
> The Nav says half a minute to go..for what, the I.P. because later the
> bomb aimer says the bombs going in about a minute. In the meantime
> someone (the Nav?) is saying keep weaving.
>
> The R.A.F. used the term Bomb Aimer NOT Bombardier. BTW, you never here
> the Bomb Aimer say 'Bombs Gone'
>
> There was no drone of engines in the background even with the pilot and
> other crew members talking with O2 masks on you would have heard
> something.
>
> All the wartime R.C.A.F. and R.A.F. pilots I know, used individual names
> of their crew versus crew position when calling them on the intercom.
>
> The skipper asks the engineer to put the revs up. To what RPM?
>
> The recording device would have been connected to the intercom system.
> Only one person can talk at a time yet we here a number of the crew
> cheering over the supposed shoot down of a unidentified Luftwaffe
> aircraft. I don't think they had hot mikes back then.
> Maybe our resident Lanc F/E Gord Beaman can answer that question.
>
> How could the pilot see the aircraft going down, as it would be well
> behind him by the time he says anything about it, even if the aircraft
> had been shot down while making a head on attack.
>
> There are other things that don't sound right but I'll leave it at that
> for now.
>
> Cheers...Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

av8r > wrote:

>There are other things that don't sound right but I'll leave it at that
>for now.
>
>Cheers...Chris
>

Well, I could be wrong of course but I doubt that it's real. As
Chris says it's too quiet. the bloody Lanc makes one hell of a
lot of noise and I remember the intercom being of poor quality
because of that and the poor headsets we used (HS-33 with
handheld T-17 carbon mikes). You can indeed hear several people
talking at once on any a/c intercom system that I've ever used
though but it's just too quiet on this one. Another thing is that
on any system that I've used (except for 'hot mics' on takeoff
and landing) you always hear the click as anyone pushes their mic
switch and the hiss of background noise while the mic is open.
There was none of this...all in all it was too quiet in my
estimation...I think it was faked. I gotta add though that the MG
sounded kinda real to me...
--

-Gord.

[Stolly]

ITS REAL :)

We have the name of the aircraft involved, its Squadron, the name of the BBC
guys that made the recording, a photo of them standing outside the aircraft
in question before the mission, pictures of the equipment they used, and the
date of the incident.

""Wynford Vaughn Thomas did a trip to Berlin on 3 Sep 1943 to make the
famous
BBC recording, broadcast in the Home Service on 4th September 1943 and many
times since, of a Lancaster crew on a bombing raid. This included the
shooting down of an attacking fighter"

Seriously, read this thread. Proof is at the end of the second page. On
Page 3 you have the people who said it was not authentic admiting they were
wrong.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97116&perpage=50&pagenumber=1

ITS REAL :)

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> av8r > wrote:
>
> >There are other things that don't sound right but I'll leave it at that
> >for now.
> >
> >Cheers...Chris
> >
>
> Well, I could be wrong of course but I doubt that it's real. As
> Chris says it's too quiet. the bloody Lanc makes one hell of a
> lot of noise and I remember the intercom being of poor quality
> because of that and the poor headsets we used (HS-33 with
> handheld T-17 carbon mikes). You can indeed hear several people
> talking at once on any a/c intercom system that I've ever used
> though but it's just too quiet on this one. Another thing is that
> on any system that I've used (except for 'hot mics' on takeoff
> and landing) you always hear the click as anyone pushes their mic
> switch and the hiss of background noise while the mic is open.
> There was none of this...all in all it was too quiet in my
> estimation...I think it was faked. I gotta add though that the MG
> sounded kinda real to me...
> --
>
> -Gord.

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Stolly
> writes
>FYI with the help of a number of other people we have proved this recording
>to be authenic.
>
>"Wynford Vaughn Thomas did a trip to Berlin on 3 Sep 1943 to make the famous
>BBC recording, broadcast in the Home Service on 4th September 1943 and many
>times since, of a Lancaster crew on a bombing raid. This included the
>shooting down of an attacking fighter"

That's the one that I remember, sorry for false attribution to Richard
D. I remember the tremor in WVT's voice and wondering whether it was
fear or the vibration of the aircraft.

Mike
>
>Discussion thread here
>
>http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97116&p
>erpage=50&pagenumber=1
>
>"av8r" > wrote in message
...
>> Hi Brian
>>
>> This whole thing stinks. Couple of points:
>>
>> The Nav says half a minute to go..for what, the I.P. because later the
>> bomb aimer says the bombs going in about a minute. In the meantime
>> someone (the Nav?) is saying keep weaving.
>>
>> The R.A.F. used the term Bomb Aimer NOT Bombardier. BTW, you never here
>> the Bomb Aimer say 'Bombs Gone'
>>
>> There was no drone of engines in the background even with the pilot and
>> other crew members talking with O2 masks on you would have heard
>> something.
>>
>> All the wartime R.C.A.F. and R.A.F. pilots I know, used individual names
>> of their crew versus crew position when calling them on the intercom.
>>
>> The skipper asks the engineer to put the revs up. To what RPM?
>>
>> The recording device would have been connected to the intercom system.
>> Only one person can talk at a time yet we here a number of the crew
>> cheering over the supposed shoot down of a unidentified Luftwaffe
>> aircraft. I don't think they had hot mikes back then.
>> Maybe our resident Lanc F/E Gord Beaman can answer that question.
>>
>> How could the pilot see the aircraft going down, as it would be well
>> behind him by the time he says anything about it, even if the aircraft
>> had been shot down while making a head on attack.
>>
>> There are other things that don't sound right but I'll leave it at that
>> for now.
>>
>> Cheers...Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
M.J.Powell

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, "Gord
writes
>av8r > wrote:
>
>>There are other things that don't sound right but I'll leave it at that
>>for now.
>>
>>Cheers...Chris
>>
>
>Well, I could be wrong of course but I doubt that it's real. As
>Chris says it's too quiet. the bloody Lanc makes one hell of a
>lot of noise and I remember the intercom being of poor quality
>because of that and the poor headsets we used (HS-33 with
>handheld T-17 carbon mikes).

I really can't remember any RAF a/c where hand-held mics were used. I've
seen them used in American films and thought how awkward they were.

>You can indeed hear several people
>talking at once on any a/c intercom system that I've ever used
>though but it's just too quiet on this one. Another thing is that
>on any system that I've used (except for 'hot mics' on takeoff
>and landing) you always hear the click as anyone pushes their mic
>switch and the hiss of background noise while the mic is open.

I don't remember any 'click' when the oxygen mask mic switch was used.
Some time early in the war the mic was changed from carbon to
moving-coil, using an extra amplifier in the intercom circuit.
Convention in my time was that only the pilot left his mic open all the
time, otherwise you got all the crew's breathing in your ears
continually.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Stolly]

Do you know where i might be able to get hold of the whole recording ?

It would be fascinating to hear all of it.

"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Stolly
> > writes
> >FYI with the help of a number of other people we have proved this
recording
> >to be authenic.
> >
> >"Wynford Vaughn Thomas did a trip to Berlin on 3 Sep 1943 to make the
famous
> >BBC recording, broadcast in the Home Service on 4th September 1943 and
many
> >times since, of a Lancaster crew on a bombing raid. This included the
> >shooting down of an attacking fighter"
>
> That's the one that I remember, sorry for false attribution to Richard
> D. I remember the tremor in WVT's voice and wondering whether it was
> fear or the vibration of the aircraft.
>
> Mike
> >
> >Discussion thread here
> >
> >http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97116&p
> >erpage=50&pagenumber=1
> >
> >"av8r" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Hi Brian
> >>
> >> This whole thing stinks. Couple of points:
> >>
> >> The Nav says half a minute to go..for what, the I.P. because later the
> >> bomb aimer says the bombs going in about a minute. In the meantime
> >> someone (the Nav?) is saying keep weaving.
> >>
> >> The R.A.F. used the term Bomb Aimer NOT Bombardier. BTW, you never
here
> >> the Bomb Aimer say 'Bombs Gone'
> >>
> >> There was no drone of engines in the background even with the pilot and
> >> other crew members talking with O2 masks on you would have heard
> >> something.
> >>
> >> All the wartime R.C.A.F. and R.A.F. pilots I know, used individual
names
> >> of their crew versus crew position when calling them on the intercom.
> >>
> >> The skipper asks the engineer to put the revs up. To what RPM?
> >>
> >> The recording device would have been connected to the intercom system.
> >> Only one person can talk at a time yet we here a number of the crew
> >> cheering over the supposed shoot down of a unidentified Luftwaffe
> >> aircraft. I don't think they had hot mikes back then.
> >> Maybe our resident Lanc F/E Gord Beaman can answer that question.
> >>
> >> How could the pilot see the aircraft going down, as it would be well
> >> behind him by the time he says anything about it, even if the aircraft
> >> had been shot down while making a head on attack.
> >>
> >> There are other things that don't sound right but I'll leave it at that
> >> for now.
> >>
> >> Cheers...Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> M.J.Powell

[Stolly]

Thanks

I will check this out.

"Richard Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> M. J. Powell wrote:
> > In message >, Richard Brooks
> > > writes
> >> Stolly wrote:
> >>> really, how do you go about arranging that, can you do it via the
> >>> web
> >>> or do you have to go there ?
> >>
> >> I wonder if the last paragaph is what it refers to ?
> >> http://www.iwm.org.uk/shopping/publicate.htm
> >>
> >> Anyway, I can't find the leaflet right now but on a yellow Post-It
> >> note I've found IWM 0207 416 5000 Sound Records - Rosemary.
> >>
> >> Richard.
> >>
> >>
> >>> "Richard Brooks" > wrote in
> >>> message ...
> >>>> Stolly wrote:
> >>>>> As far as i know this is authentic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does anyone know anymore about this ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is it indeed authentic ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.stolly.org.uk/lanc.wav
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Its a 400k wav file.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dunno but there is an archiving service by the IWM and they'll fill
> >>>> a CD-R with stuff you ask for, for about a tenner which is very
> >>>> cheap.
> >>>>
> >>>> All that wartime recording by in-the-field news gatherers can be
> >>>> yours for little money!
> >
> > There was a famous recording made by Richard Dimbleby(?) in a
> > Lancaster
> > over Germany.
> >
> > The Germans were alleged to have broadcast live from a bomber over
> > London, but I don't think that would be in the IWM.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Dunno but the record does have on side one, a sound track of a Do17
taxiing
> and taking off, recorded internally. What a bloody awful noise that was.
>
> The more interesting and the longest track is of a single Me109 starting
up,
> taking off and buzzing the recordist a couple of times, then there are
> several pairs of Me109s taking off, same with He111s taking off and
finally
> the whole lot approaching from some distance away. All starts quiet with
a
> bird singing in the foreground then lots and lots of aircraft flying over
> then all fades out. After a while the bird starts singing again. I think
> the track is called "Bound for London."
>
> Richard.
>
>

[av8r]

Hi Stolly

I'm still not convinced this is the real thing despite all the
testimonials otherwise. Why was the term 'Bombardier' used for
instance. Do you not think it could have been just a BBC studio
production for the folks back home who were starving for some positive
news in the night bomber campaign against Germany. It would have taken
very little effort to collect a crew and snap a few pix then pass it off
as the real deal.

Cheers...Chris

[[email protected]]

"M. J. Powell" > wrote:

>I don't remember any 'click' when the oxygen mask mic switch was used.
>Some time early in the war the mic was changed from carbon to
>moving-coil, using an extra amplifier in the intercom circuit.
>Convention in my time was that only the pilot left his mic open all the
>time, otherwise you got all the crew's breathing in your ears
>continually.
>
>Mike

Could be Mike, but you mention RAF and WW2 era. The RCAF used the
Lancaster X Maritime Reconnance version in the early to mid
fifties which indeed did still have hand held carbon mics. They
were the T-17 type and being young curious types we 'dismantled'
one and saw the carbon granules in the little pocket in there. We
were in ASW service so hardly ever wore O2 masks but I remember
that they also had those small round mics imbedded in the rubber.

Actually any intercom system (that I've used) will exhibit that
distinctive click and the hiss of background noise while the mic
is open. I recall searching for a stuck mic switch on an Argus
with maybe 20 intercom stations.

We used hot mic for takeoff and landing for the Pilots and F/E on
the Argus for instant comms. The hiss was annoying and was often
not used for that reason.

The Lanc model that we used carried a 'wire recorder' for the
sonobuoys which could likely have been wired to the intercom so
that's not a big deal but it didn't sound real to me. Mind you
now, I left Lancs nearly 50 years ago but I remember a lot about
them because I was young then and impressionable and I'm pretty
sure that that recording is fake...it's just much too quiet, no
engine noise at all...they were hellishly LOUD...the commands
just didn't sound 'right'...mind you they were RAF but still...

My considered opinion...fake...
--

-Gord.

[Tex Houston]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> The Lanc model that we used carried a 'wire recorder' for the
> sonobuoys which could likely have been wired to the intercom so
> that's not a big deal but it didn't sound real to me. Mind you
> now, I left Lancs nearly 50 years ago but I remember a lot about
> them because I was young then and impressionable and I'm pretty
> sure that that recording is fake...it's just much too quiet, no
> engine noise at all...they were hellishly LOUD...the commands
> just didn't sound 'right'...mind you they were RAF but still...
>
> My considered opinion...fake...
> --
>
> -Gord.

While filming a television show where we protested "It didn't happen that
way" and I got some advice to live by from the director. "There's real life
and then there's television."

Tex Houston

[Stolly]

To the extent that they faked the people standing in front of the aircraft
for the photograph and had many people in on the conspiracy who took the
secret to their graves including a very well know BBC reporter ?

Come on, if you don't belive this after all the evidence from multiple
places then i'm suprised you actually believe anything.

We have the people involved, the date, the unit, the equipment, and even a
picture taken on the day with the aircraft in the background with the right
markings on and you choose not to believe it because you think that the
English don't use the word "Bombardier"

My father was a Bombardier in the Royal Artillery btw. That was his rank.

"av8r" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Stolly
>
> I'm still not convinced this is the real thing despite all the
> testimonials otherwise. Why was the term 'Bombardier' used for
> instance. Do you not think it could have been just a BBC studio
> production for the folks back home who were starving for some positive
> news in the night bomber campaign against Germany. It would have taken
> very little effort to collect a crew and snap a few pix then pass it off
> as the real deal.
>
> Cheers...Chris
>

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, "Gord
writes
>"M. J. Powell" > wrote:
>
>>I don't remember any 'click' when the oxygen mask mic switch was used.
>>Some time early in the war the mic was changed from carbon to
>>moving-coil, using an extra amplifier in the intercom circuit.
>>Convention in my time was that only the pilot left his mic open all the
>>time, otherwise you got all the crew's breathing in your ears
>>continually.
>>
>>Mike
>
>Could be Mike, but you mention RAF and WW2 era. The RCAF used the
>Lancaster X Maritime Reconnance version in the early to mid
>fifties which indeed did still have hand held carbon mics.

I am amazed! Even for low-level stuff where you didn't need the O2 the
need to occupy one hand with a mic seems very retrograde.

> They
>were the T-17 type and being young curious types we 'dismantled'
>one and saw the carbon granules in the little pocket in there.

Yes, I remember seeing them on the surplus market in the late 40's.

> We
>were in ASW service so hardly ever wore O2 masks but I remember
>that they also had those small round mics imbedded in the rubber.
>
>Actually any intercom system (that I've used) will exhibit that
>distinctive click and the hiss of background noise while the mic
>is open. I recall searching for a stuck mic switch on an Argus
>with maybe 20 intercom stations.
>
>We used hot mic for takeoff and landing for the Pilots and F/E on
>the Argus for instant comms. The hiss was annoying and was often
>not used for that reason.
>
>The Lanc model that we used carried a 'wire recorder' for the
>sonobuoys which could likely have been wired to the intercom so
>that's not a big deal but it didn't sound real to me.

Yes, I had my helmet wiring altered to provide a feed to a pocket
recorder.
We used the wire-recorders too. I forget the maker. I remember seeing a
F/O in an office passing 10" lengths of wire across the head of a
recorder to see what was on it after a crash. The take-up spool had been
bisected in the impact. He was writing down the contents of each length.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Stolly]

Guys,

We have the name of the aircraft involved, its Squadron, the name of the BBC
guys that made the recording, a photo of them standing outside the aircraft
in question before the mission, pictures of the equipment they used, and the
date of the mission. We even know the eventual fate of the aircraft.

This is from multiple sources found by more than one person.

The 2 people that made the recording were BBC employees not members of the
services. The reporter in particular was a well known personality at the
time. I really do doubt that he would have been involved in a hoax for
propaganda reasons or any other and doubt even less that he would have kept
the secret for 40 years. He even mentioned this recording at a reunion of
207 squadron shortly before his death in the mid '80's.



"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "M. J. Powell" > wrote:
>
> >I don't remember any 'click' when the oxygen mask mic switch was used.
> >Some time early in the war the mic was changed from carbon to
> >moving-coil, using an extra amplifier in the intercom circuit.
> >Convention in my time was that only the pilot left his mic open all the
> >time, otherwise you got all the crew's breathing in your ears
> >continually.
> >
> >Mike
>
> Could be Mike, but you mention RAF and WW2 era. The RCAF used the
> Lancaster X Maritime Reconnance version in the early to mid
> fifties which indeed did still have hand held carbon mics. They
> were the T-17 type and being young curious types we 'dismantled'
> one and saw the carbon granules in the little pocket in there. We
> were in ASW service so hardly ever wore O2 masks but I remember
> that they also had those small round mics imbedded in the rubber.
>
> Actually any intercom system (that I've used) will exhibit that
> distinctive click and the hiss of background noise while the mic
> is open. I recall searching for a stuck mic switch on an Argus
> with maybe 20 intercom stations.
>
> We used hot mic for takeoff and landing for the Pilots and F/E on
> the Argus for instant comms. The hiss was annoying and was often
> not used for that reason.
>
> The Lanc model that we used carried a 'wire recorder' for the
> sonobuoys which could likely have been wired to the intercom so
> that's not a big deal but it didn't sound real to me. Mind you
> now, I left Lancs nearly 50 years ago but I remember a lot about
> them because I was young then and impressionable and I'm pretty
> sure that that recording is fake...it's just much too quiet, no
> engine noise at all...they were hellishly LOUD...the commands
> just didn't sound 'right'...mind you they were RAF but still...
>
> My considered opinion...fake...
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Stolly" > wrote in message
...
> Guys,
>
> We have the name of the aircraft involved, its Squadron, the name of the
BBC
> guys that made the recording, a photo of them standing outside the
aircraft
> in question before the mission, pictures of the equipment they used, and
the
> date of the mission. We even know the eventual fate of the aircraft.
>
> This is from multiple sources found by more than one person.
>
> The 2 people that made the recording were BBC employees not members of the
> services. The reporter in particular was a well known personality at the
> time. I really do doubt that he would have been involved in a hoax for
> propaganda reasons or any other and doubt even less that he would have
kept
> the secret for 40 years. He even mentioned this recording at a reunion of
> 207 squadron shortly before his death in the mid '80's.
>

While I'm quite sure the report is based on the actual flight and
accurately records what happened there were numerous cases
during the war when incidents were re-enacted as the original was
simply not very impressive when broadcast or shown on the
cinema screen.

For example some of the more impressive shots of British Infantry
advancing at El-Alamein were re-enacted after the battle as cameras
of the day were incapable of captuting images of the required quality
at night.

I would'nt be at all surprised in this case if some parts of the sound
track were redubbed later to make the clearer.

Keith

[[email protected]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>While I'm quite sure the report is based on the actual flight and
>accurately records what happened there were numerous cases
>during the war when incidents were re-enacted as the original was
>simply not very impressive when broadcast or shown on the
>cinema screen.
>
>For example some of the more impressive shots of British Infantry
>advancing at El-Alamein were re-enacted after the battle as cameras
>of the day were incapable of captuting images of the required quality
>at night.
>
>I would'nt be at all surprised in this case if some parts of the sound
>track were redubbed later to make the clearer.
>
>Keith
>

Could be Keith...all I know is that for pretty damned sure that
recording wasn't made from a Lanc in flight. I listened to it
carefully several times and I'm convinced that it just couldn't
have been.

As I said, the Lanc is horrendously loud when in flight and
there's no trace of that distinctive sound that four Merlins make
when operating even at normal cruise power. There's no chance
that they could have filtered it that clean either cause there's
just no trace of the engines in it at all.

Some of the orders don't sit well with me either...the one where
the Pilot orders the Engineer to "Put the revs up", he likely
wouldn't have said it that way, more likely "Engineer, 2400 RPM
(or revs)" or somesuch. That sounds nitpicky I agree but "Put the
revs up" doesn't sit well with me. Sounds...well...fake.

I'm still convinced that it's not real.
--

-Gord.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
>
> Could be Keith...all I know is that for pretty damned sure that
> recording wasn't made from a Lanc in flight. I listened to it
> carefully several times and I'm convinced that it just couldn't
> have been.
>
> As I said, the Lanc is horrendously loud when in flight and
> there's no trace of that distinctive sound that four Merlins make
> when operating even at normal cruise power. There's no chance
> that they could have filtered it that clean either cause there's
> just no trace of the engines in it at all.
>
> Some of the orders don't sit well with me either...the one where
> the Pilot orders the Engineer to "Put the revs up", he likely
> wouldn't have said it that way, more likely "Engineer, 2400 RPM
> (or revs)" or somesuch. That sounds nitpicky I agree but "Put the
> revs up" doesn't sit well with me. Sounds...well...fake.
>
> I'm still convinced that it's not real.
> --
>

Its possible that what happened is that when the recording got
back to broadcasting house some producer decided that
the recording was too low a quality to use and got
a couple of actors to play the part.

It is a matter of record that Wynford Vaughan Thomas DID
fly that mission and took a sound engineer with him.

The sound engineer was Reg Pidsey and he used disc
recorders not a wire recorder

http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.co.uk/bh/repwar/wr_intro.htm

Keith

[Blair Maynard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Its possible that what happened is that when the recording got
> back to broadcasting house some producer decided that
> the recording was too low a quality to use and got
> a couple of actors to play the part.
>
> It is a matter of record that Wynford Vaughan Thomas DID
> fly that mission and took a sound engineer with him.
>
> The sound engineer was Reg Pidsey and he used disc
> recorders not a wire recorder
>
> http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.co.uk/bh/repwar/wr_intro.htm
>
> Keith
>
>
The lack of engine noise is rather odd. One would expect anybody trying to
fake such a recording would be quite capable of adding it.

It is obvious that people talk over each other, so either they are all in
the same room, or they have a full duplex system. Actually, it sounded like
they all had open mics. We don't hear much in the way of non-vocal noises
other than the machinegun bursts. Presumably that burst was picked up by a
mic which was open although nobody was speaking, so there had to be at least
one open mic, since they didn't have voice-activated mics back then.

Some of these things may be explicable. We would need to know the location
and recording characteristics of the recording device and how it was hooked
up to the comm system of the aircraft. And information about the comm system
of this aircraft to see if such a conversation was even possible. The nature
of the device could explain why the engine noise didn't get recorded. Early
recorders were probably not very good at recording low frequency sounds. It
may also explain why the machine gun sounds so tinny.

I don't think the crew was incredibly calm in that situation. They are
flying
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP3ferFBGDfMEdHggEQJakQCeKNiTAZI00JILYBukObLj1n eZEckAoKKJ
J7pTP+o9IcwOjD3xBWs3bwOT
=Jzqw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[reading.news.pipex.net]

It may be that the recording was "cleaned up" before broadcast.

Lets not forget though that the recording was done on the night of 3/4 Sept
and broadcast the very next night on the evening of the 4th.

The aircraft would have landed around 6am on the 4th at RAF Spilsby. This
is near Skegness in Lincolnshire, around 3 hours drive from the BBC
broadcasting center in London (Crystal Palace in WWII IIRC) so the recording
would have arrived at the studio around 9am to be generous.

That doesn't leave much time for any re-recording with actors wouldn't you
agree ? Maybe time to edit the recording but not anything else.

"Blair Maynard" > wrote in message
...
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Its possible that what happened is that when the recording got
> > back to broadcasting house some producer decided that
> > the recording was too low a quality to use and got
> > a couple of actors to play the part.
> >
> > It is a matter of record that Wynford Vaughan Thomas DID
> > fly that mission and took a sound engineer with him.
> >
> > The sound engineer was Reg Pidsey and he used disc
> > recorders not a wire recorder
> >
> > http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.co.uk/bh/repwar/wr_intro.htm
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> The lack of engine noise is rather odd. One would expect anybody trying to
> fake such a recording would be quite capable of adding it.
>
> It is obvious that people talk over each other, so either they are all in
> the same room, or they have a full duplex system. Actually, it sounded
like
> they all had open mics. We don't hear much in the way of non-vocal noises
> other than the machinegun bursts. Presumably that burst was picked up by a
> mic which was open although nobody was speaking, so there had to be at
least
> one open mic, since they didn't have voice-activated mics back then.
>
> Some of these things may be explicable. We would need to know the location
> and recording characteristics of the recording device and how it was
hooked
> up to the comm system of the aircraft. And information about the comm
system
> of this aircraft to see if such a conversation was even possible. The
nature
> of the device could explain why the engine noise didn't get recorded.
Early
> recorders were probably not very good at recording low frequency sounds.
It
> may also explain why the machine gun sounds so tinny.
>
> I don't think the crew was incredibly calm in that situation. They are
> flying
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0
>
> iQA/AwUBP3ferFBGDfMEdHggEQJakQCeKNiTAZI00JILYBukObLj1n eZEckAoKKJ
> J7pTP+o9IcwOjD3xBWs3bwOT
> =Jzqw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"reading.news.pipex.net" > wrote in message
t...
> It may be that the recording was "cleaned up" before broadcast.
>

Quite so

> Lets not forget though that the recording was done on the night of 3/4
Sept
> and broadcast the very next night on the evening of the 4th.
>
> The aircraft would have landed around 6am on the 4th at RAF Spilsby. This
> is near Skegness in Lincolnshire, around 3 hours drive from the BBC
> broadcasting center in London (Crystal Palace in WWII IIRC) so the
recording
> would have arrived at the studio around 9am to be generous.
>
> That doesn't leave much time for any re-recording with actors wouldn't you
> agree ? Maybe time to edit the recording but not anything else.
>

Recall that we are talking of an era when radio plays were broadcast
live and that the BBC had its own rather large stock company.
Even today its not unusual for voice overs to be added
shortly before broadcast.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Blair Maynard" > wrote in message
...

> > The sound engineer was Reg Pidsey and he used disc
> > recorders not a wire recorder
> >
> > http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.co.uk/bh/repwar/wr_intro.htm
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> The lack of engine noise is rather odd. One would expect anybody trying to
> fake such a recording would be quite capable of adding it.
>

Unless of course the intent was to subtract it to make the
soundtrack audible.

> It is obvious that people talk over each other, so either they are all in
> the same room, or they have a full duplex system. Actually, it sounded
like
> they all had open mics. We don't hear much in the way of non-vocal noises
> other than the machinegun bursts. Presumably that burst was picked up by a
> mic which was open although nobody was speaking, so there had to be at
least
> one open mic, since they didn't have voice-activated mics back then.
>

Or the crew were recorded using a second non-standard microphone

> Some of these things may be explicable. We would need to know the location
> and recording characteristics of the recording device and how it was
hooked
> up to the comm system of the aircraft. And information about the comm
system
> of this aircraft to see if such a conversation was even possible. The
nature
> of the device could explain why the engine noise didn't get recorded.
Early
> recorders were probably not very good at recording low frequency sounds.
It
> may also explain why the machine gun sounds so tinny.
>

The equipment used was apparently restricted to the range
60 Hz to 4500 Hz

> I don't think the crew was incredibly calm in that situation. They are
> flying

Details of the recording equipment used are available at

http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.co.uk/bh/repwar/wr_action.htm
http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.co.uk/bh/repwar/wr_recorders.htm

Keith

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Blair Maynard
> writes

snip
>
>It is obvious that people talk over each other, so either they are all in
>the same room, or they have a full duplex system. Actually, it sounded like
>they all had open mics. We don't hear much in the way of non-vocal noises
>other than the machinegun bursts. Presumably that burst was picked up by a
>mic which was open although nobody was speaking, so there had to be at least
>one open mic, since they didn't have voice-activated mics back then.
>
>Some of these things may be explicable. We would need to know the location
>and recording characteristics of the recording device and how it was hooked
>up to the comm system of the aircraft.

Basically all headphones are in parallel, aren't they? My recorder was
across my headphone feed and I got all the intercom chat.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Blair Maynard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"reading.news.pipex.net" > wrote in message
t...
> It may be that the recording was "cleaned up" before broadcast.
>

Any idea on which version of Steinberg Sound Forge they were using? :P
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP3hOIFBGDfMEdHggEQKONQCglIOXAW8dDEdFzyPKkh1LFz gXyjAAn3dg
tOgMtLGX75HOpHWVaF+oLjxX
=gprc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[av8r]

Hi Keith

I'd like to know why the skipper called the Bomb Aimer a Bombaradier?

Cheers...Chris

[Keith Willshaw]

"av8r" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Keith
>
> I'd like to know why the skipper called the Bomb Aimer a Bombaradier?
>
> Cheers...Chris
>

Who knows, maybe he was a Canadian ?

The term bomb aimer and air bomber were both current in the RAF
but I believe bombardier was used by the RCAF and Americanisms
abounded in slang usage even in 1943.

Personally I'm inclined to the view that it was not uttered
by the skipper at all but by an actor or continuity man in
BBC Broadcasting house when they were cleaning up the
tape.

Keith

[Greg Hennessy]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:50:36 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>Personally I'm inclined to the view that it was not uttered
>by the skipper at all but by an actor or continuity man in
>BBC Broadcasting house when they were cleaning up the
>tape.
>

Yes, the accents are a little too 'high spotties' in 'elexindra pillice'


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[Stephen Harding]

Stolly wrote:

> He was fighting with the British Army in Malaya while the US was in Vietnam
> around 1965 and said that the contrast between the radio discipline used by
> the RAF Hunter pilots on ground attack missions was like the difference
> between night and day compared to the US pilots flying similar missions over
> Vietnam.
>
> Malaya was close enough to pick up the US comms coming out of Vietnam.
>
> He said "Our Hunter pilots were Target 2 miles. Diving now, Tally ho" (yes
> they actually said Tally ho) "the Yanks were shouting and swearing about
> ground fire this and f*cking that"

So just how much "f*cking that" ground fire were RAF Hunter pilots experiencing
compared to US pilots over Vietnam?

Pilots tend to be pretty calm over training ranges too, but I'm not certain
that is very indicative of the radio discipline of the individual.


SMH

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Stephen Harding
> writes
>Stolly wrote:
>
>> He was fighting with the British Army in Malaya while the US was in Vietnam
>> around 1965 and said that the contrast between the radio discipline used by
>> the RAF Hunter pilots on ground attack missions was like the difference
>> between night and day compared to the US pilots flying similar missions over
>> Vietnam.
>>
>> Malaya was close enough to pick up the US comms coming out of Vietnam.
>>
>> He said "Our Hunter pilots were Target 2 miles. Diving now, Tally ho" (yes
>> they actually said Tally ho) "the Yanks were shouting and swearing about
>> ground fire this and f*cking that"
>
>So just how much "f*cking that" ground fire were RAF Hunter pilots experiencing
>compared to US pilots over Vietnam?
>
>Pilots tend to be pretty calm over training ranges too, but I'm not certain
>that is very indicative of the radio discipline of the individual.

The RT during the Bob was pretty rough according to some stories. To the
extent that higher command wanted to replace the WAAF operators with
men.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Stolly]

Probably similar amounts, since the US pilots in question were flying over
the south, as far as could be assertained.

As they got further north they couldn't be heard unless there were pretty
high.

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Stolly wrote:
>
> > He was fighting with the British Army in Malaya while the US was in
Vietnam
> > around 1965 and said that the contrast between the radio discipline used
by
> > the RAF Hunter pilots on ground attack missions was like the difference
> > between night and day compared to the US pilots flying similar missions
over
> > Vietnam.
> >
> > Malaya was close enough to pick up the US comms coming out of Vietnam.
> >
> > He said "Our Hunter pilots were Target 2 miles. Diving now, Tally ho"
(yes
> > they actually said Tally ho) "the Yanks were shouting and swearing about
> > ground fire this and f*cking that"
>
> So just how much "f*cking that" ground fire were RAF Hunter pilots
experiencing
> compared to US pilots over Vietnam?
>
> Pilots tend to be pretty calm over training ranges too, but I'm not
certain
> that is very indicative of the radio discipline of the individual.
>
>
> SMH

[Gordon]

I have a wave file of a VN-era rescue going bad - a Jolly enters into a pick up
zone over a downed pilot and are promptly driven off by a blizzard of small
arms fire. The voices are professional but not entirely "calm" as they are in
direct fire from the enemy that they cannot see.

A pilot reacts to the sight of the H-2 getting raked as it pulls in over the
survivor and yells, "Get out of there buddy - you were recievin' fire that
time!" He replies stoicly, "We're takin' fire every time."

After a pause, he came back on the air, over the sound of his own
disintegrating helicopter, "We've been shot... out of the ... sky.." at which
point the transmission ends.

I think judging an entire Air Force's radio discipline and drawing conclusions
as to their professionalism based on the comments made during a combat
encounter is rather churlish, when its done from the comfort of a computer
chair in someone's home.

Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[El Bastardo]

On 01 Oct 2003 23:14:32 GMT, (Gordon) wrote:

>I have a wave file of a VN-era rescue going bad - a Jolly enters into a pick up
>zone over a downed pilot and are promptly driven off by a blizzard of small
>arms fire. The voices are professional but not entirely "calm" as they are in
>direct fire from the enemy that they cannot see.
>
>A pilot reacts to the sight of the H-2 getting raked as it pulls in over the
>survivor and yells, "Get out of there buddy - you were recievin' fire that
>time!" He replies stoicly, "We're takin' fire every time."
>
>After a pause, he came back on the air, over the sound of his own
>disintegrating helicopter, "We've been shot... out of the ... sky.." at which
>point the transmission ends.
>
>I think judging an entire Air Force's radio discipline and drawing conclusions
>as to their professionalism based on the comments made during a combat
>encounter is rather churlish, when its done from the comfort of a computer
>chair in someone's home.
>
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR Aircrew
>
>"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
>"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

And these guys were flying through flak at night. One or two crew see
tracers from behind, and the tail gunner shoots down a fighter, before
the rest of the crew really know what was going on.

Not quite the same thing as trying to land a helicopter in a hot LZ.

Not that it wasn't dangerous bombing Germany at night in WW2, it is
just that being scared and expressing it on the radio requires an
apprehension of immediate and unexpected danger. What the Brits were
doing, in all likelihood, they had done numerous times before. Most of
them didn't know about the fighter until it was going down. Not to
mention the specialist on the airplane recording what they were saying
on this funny disc cutter.

[The CO]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> av8r > wrote:
>
> >There are other things that don't sound right but I'll leave it at
that
> >for now.
> >
> >Cheers...Chris
> >
>
> Well, I could be wrong of course but I doubt that it's real. As
> Chris says it's too quiet. the bloody Lanc makes one hell of a
> lot of noise and I remember the intercom being of poor quality
> because of that and the poor headsets we used (HS-33 with
> handheld T-17 carbon mikes). You can indeed hear several people
> talking at once on any a/c intercom system that I've ever used
> though but it's just too quiet on this one.

I get the impression it was genuine.

This lack of noise *could* be because of limitations in the recording
process.
It could also be due to to things done post recording to improve the
quality.
If this was a 'disc cutter' of some kind it may have had some
problems reproducing high frequency hiss and even static.
The ear is far better at hearing such things, though I suspect the
actual intercom is the reason for the lack of engine noise at least.
The lack of engine noise doesn't greatly surprise me, a carbon mike
is insensitive at best and if they were mask fitted (which seems to be
the case) they might well not 'hear' the engine noise well enough for
the recording device to record it. (Again bear in mind that your ears
are more sensitive than the equipment likely used, if you were there,
you'd hear it, but the level might not be high enough for the recording
equipment to record it at anything like the same level.)

There is also another possibility that I'll mention in a moment.

> Another thing is that
> on any system that I've used (except for 'hot mics' on takeoff
> and landing) you always hear the click as anyone pushes their mic
> switch and the hiss of background noise while the mic is open.
> There was none of this...all in all it was too quiet in my
> estimation...I think it was faked. I gotta add though that the MG
> sounded kinda real to me...

The MG sounds like it was picked up through the rear gunners mike, with
the
resulting loss of high and low frequencies that would cause.
The general audio quality has that 'telephone' quality that such a
system would
present, and the lack of hiss and other noise may be due to either the
lack
of audio bandwidth in the system itself, or in the recording process.

The other possibility is an 'either or both' thing.

It's also *very* possible it was 'washed' in the process of putting it
into electronic format
to make it clearer. This is quite trivial to do and can make a bad
recording sound
significantly better, simply by eliminating the audio frequency 'notch'
that (mostly) contains the noise.

It's also *possible* that the original disk (or whatever) was played
back and the output
put through some passive filters to clean it up a bit and perhaps adjust
the levels and *then* cut
to a new disk before it was airplayed (or whatever they did with it).

Some of the terminology seems appropriate as well.
There is a report in there 'Photograph taken' which would probably be
a little obscure for all but the most cunning of fakers. That bomber
command did in fact take photos (and the reasoning for it) is pretty
well
covered in 'Evidence in Camera" by Constance Babbington-Smith, but it
strikes me that a faker could overlook that in a construct.

The CO

[The CO]

Tripped over this on Ebay. Seems to be an LP that includes this
particular recording.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2560925013&categor
y=306

The CO

[John Halliwell]

In article >, The CO
> writes
>It's also *very* possible it was 'washed' in the process of putting it
>into electronic format
>to make it clearer. This is quite trivial to do and can make a bad
>recording sound
>significantly better, simply by eliminating the audio frequency 'notch'
>that (mostly) contains the noise.

Maybe they were using filters on the recording equipment? If the first
thing an experienced Lanc crewman says when planning the idea is "You
can't hear anything over the engines, and there's this awful hiss from
the intercom..." it would make sense to me.

--
John

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> Who knows, maybe he was a Canadian ?

Sorry, Keith, this seems unlikely from a Canadian perspectivefor two
reasons: U.S. use of the term "bombardier" was not widely known in Canada
until films and radio plays started to be made about the U.S. air
campaign in Europe, and the Canadian desire to guard its cultural
distinctions even then -- the RCAF would have taken on RAF terminology as
part of doctrine, and use of correct terminology would have been insisted
upon in training after which it sticks.

> The term bomb aimer and air bomber were both current in the RAF
> but I believe bombardier was used by the RCAF and Americanisms
> abounded in slang usage even in 1943.

One of the best Canadian memoires of bombing ops over Europe is Murray
Peden's _A Thousand Shall Fall_. He consistently uses "bomb aimer" in the
book; I could not find "bombardier" as I rescanned it last night. Mind
you, he's only one. However, I know some former 6 Group and other aircrew
from my membership in the Legion and from elsewhere; they get *very*
shirty if you use "bombardier" rather than "bomb aimer". "Bombardier" was
already in use in the RCA as a rank (and likely had been in use in
similar contexts since the formation of the Loyal Company of Artillery at
Saint John in 1783 or so) .

> Personally I'm inclined to the view that it was not uttered
> by the skipper at all but by an actor or continuity man in
> BBC Broadcasting house when they were cleaning up the
> tape.

I subscribe to the re-enactment hypothesis too, that way the BBC man and
the aircrew would have been able to say he was really there to record the
sortie and that they had really said those things. The only anomalous
thing seems to be the use of "bombardier".
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Guy Alcala]

Andrew Chaplin wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message

<snip>

> > Personally I'm inclined to the view that it was not uttered
> > by the skipper at all but by an actor or continuity man in
> > BBC Broadcasting house when they were cleaning up the
> > tape.
>
> I subscribe to the re-enactment hypothesis too, that way the BBC man and
> the aircrew would have been able to say he was really there to record the
> sortie and that they had really said those things. The only anomalous
> thing seems to be the use of "bombardier".

Well, that, the lack of use of first names for the crew members other than
the pilot ("skipper" is correct), and the lack of profanity. Of course, a
crew that knew they were being recorded might well have tried to sound more
'professional'; use of names instead of job titles was officially frowned
upon, but almost universally practiced by the crews. I'd be willing to bet,
though, that the original language was a hell of a lot more salty, especially
when reacting to or talking about the fighter. I lean towards the cleaned-up
reconstruction view.

Guy

[[email protected]]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>
>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>
><snip>
>
>> > Personally I'm inclined to the view that it was not uttered
>> > by the skipper at all but by an actor or continuity man in
>> > BBC Broadcasting house when they were cleaning up the
>> > tape.
>>
>> I subscribe to the re-enactment hypothesis too, that way the BBC man and
>> the aircrew would have been able to say he was really there to record the
>> sortie and that they had really said those things. The only anomalous
>> thing seems to be the use of "bombardier".
>
>Well, that, the lack of use of first names for the crew members other than
>the pilot ("skipper" is correct), and the lack of profanity. Of course, a
>crew that knew they were being recorded might well have tried to sound more
>'professional'; use of names instead of job titles was officially frowned
>upon, but almost universally practiced by the crews. I'd be willing to bet,
>though, that the original language was a hell of a lot more salty, especially
>when reacting to or talking about the fighter. I lean towards the cleaned-up
>reconstruction view.
>
>Guy

Come ON you guys...how in hell did they get all the engine noise
out?...NOBODY talks in a low conversational voice on a Lancaster
intercom ...you shout to be heard over the bloody engine noise...

Look...let's just for a minute think. Did you ever hear a hot rod
with no muffler? Loud aint it?, and that's going by your house
maybe 30-40 feet away. How loud would you think FOUR huge 12
cylinder unmuffled hot rod engines would sound all within about
the same distance??...it's so loud in fact that you can't use
the intercom on takeoff, it's all hand signals.
--

-Gord.

[Guy Alcala]

" wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> >Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> > Personally I'm inclined to the view that it was not uttered
> >> > by the skipper at all but by an actor or continuity man in
> >> > BBC Broadcasting house when they were cleaning up the
> >> > tape.
> >>
> >> I subscribe to the re-enactment hypothesis too, that way the BBC man and
> >> the aircrew would have been able to say he was really there to record the
> >> sortie and that they had really said those things. The only anomalous
> >> thing seems to be the use of "bombardier".
> >
> >Well, that, the lack of use of first names for the crew members other than
> >the pilot ("skipper" is correct), and the lack of profanity. Of course, a
> >crew that knew they were being recorded might well have tried to sound more
> >'professional'; use of names instead of job titles was officially frowned
> >upon, but almost universally practiced by the crews. I'd be willing to bet,
> >though, that the original language was a hell of a lot more salty, especially
> >when reacting to or talking about the fighter. I lean towards the cleaned-up
> >reconstruction view.
> >
> >Guy
>
> Come ON you guys...how in hell did they get all the engine noise
> out?...NOBODY talks in a low conversational voice on a Lancaster
> intercom ...you shout to be heard over the bloody engine noise...
>
> Look...let's just for a minute think. Did you ever hear a hot rod
> with no muffler? Loud aint it?, and that's going by your house
> maybe 30-40 feet away. How loud would you think FOUR huge 12
> cylinder unmuffled hot rod engines would sound all within about
> the same distance??...it's so loud in fact that you can't use
> the intercom on takeoff, it's all hand signals.

Without knowing how directional the in-mask mikes are, or their noise-cancelling
qualities/frequency characteristics, I'm not qualified to comment so I'll happily
defer to you on that point, although you've said that you used handheld rather
than throat or in-mask mikes. My only personal experience is with modern headset
mikes, which do indeed elminate most if not all of the engine noise (albeit a far
less powerful, single or dual piston engine).

Guy

[[email protected]]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>
>Without knowing how directional the in-mask mikes are, or their noise-cancelling
>qualities/frequency characteristics, I'm not qualified to comment so I'll happily
>defer to you on that point, although you've said that you used handheld rather
>than throat or in-mask mikes. My only personal experience is with modern headset
>mikes, which do indeed elminate most if not all of the engine noise (albeit a far
>less powerful, single or dual piston engine).
>
>Guy

Yes indeed, those modern noise cancelling mikes are great, I
think some use sort of a feedback 'out of phase' of ambient noise
to cancel the noise, they work great but no such niceties were
available to us. We did (for the most part) use carbon hand held
mics but had carbon button mics inside the oxy masks for high
altitude ops. Most of us found them so muffled that we'd just pop
one side of the mask off to use the hand mic for a few secs.
--

-Gord.

[Gordon]

Engine noise on aircraft has always been a problem, specifically on combat
(non-passenger) types. On some aircraft, you can tell which position a person
is sitting at by how much engine noise bleeds over to the ICS. Even something
as small as a B-25 has noticeable engine noise and high freq tones bleeding
over when you key the ICS, so I really can't see how a crew aboard a Lanc could
use their normal speaking voices and be heard. As for the technology of
noise-canceling microphones in 1943, I think its implausible that a Lanc would
be fitted with a system equipped with such microphones for every member of the
crew - I agree with the guys who feel this is a studio-done, or
studio-cleaned-up, product. I don't doubt that the dialogue came primarily
from a Lanc crew, but its too clean! Think of what its like in a WWII bomber -
you can barely hear yourself think. The drone of those Merlins would be
present on the recordings no matter what measures were taken to screen them out
- it would be like recording a dialogue aboard the "Maid of the Mist", and
somehow screening out the sounds of Niagra Falls, a few feet away. How likely
is that? My hunch is that the BBC guys did fly along on the mission, did
record it, and brought it back and (at a minimum) cleaned it up before
broadcast.
Next, I'd like to hear a recording of the Reichsjägerweile - the "running
commentary" radio broadcasts that occurred over Northern Europe during massive
Allied raids. Once the EW stations were overwhelmed, the Lulftwaffe ground
controllers switched to this commentary to tell units where and how the battle
raged - "Many trucks over Dortmund, heading Southward at 7,000 meters; at
fifteen after the hour, Christmas trees and duppel were dropped over Hanover
for what appears to be a feint attack. All aircraft in sector FA are ordered
to land for refueling and await further orders. Pfadfinder reported dropping
flares on Osnabruck in advance of a strong raid..." etc. Hour after hour of
the details of a strike, from the enemy perspective. I think it would be
highly interesting to hear, but as far as I know, there are no recordings
available...?

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[av8r]

Hi Gord

Nobody has addressed the issue of the use of the term bombardier by the
skipper.

Cheers...Chris

[Keith Willshaw]

"av8r" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Gord
>
> Nobody has addressed the issue of the use of the term bombardier by the
> skipper.
>

They have on several occasions.

Keith

[Guy Alcala]

av8r wrote:

> Hi Gord
>
> Nobody has addressed the issue of the use of the term bombardier by the
> skipper.

ISTM that it has been addressed at great length. Among many others I
noticed it, and I agree it _is_ unusual, but maybe not decisive.

Guy

[[email protected]]

av8r > wrote:

>Hi Gord
>
>Nobody has addressed the issue of the use of the term bombardier by the
>skipper.
>
>Cheers...Chris

I know...I saw you mention it a few times but for the life of me
I can't remember what term we (RCAF) used in the fifties...mind
you now, this was an RAF crew I believe so I can't speak for
them..

I seem to be leaning toward 'Bomb Aimer' but without a lot of
conviction.
--

-Gord.

[Blair Maynard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
> Engine noise on aircraft has always been a problem, specifically on combat
> (non-passenger) types. On some aircraft, you can tell which position a
person
> is sitting at by how much engine noise bleeds over to the ICS. Even
something
> as small as a B-25 has noticeable engine noise and high freq tones
bleeding
> over when you key the ICS, so I really can't see how a crew aboard a Lanc
could
> use their normal speaking voices and be heard. As for the technology of
> noise-canceling microphones in 1943, I think its implausible that a Lanc
would
> be fitted with a system equipped with such microphones for every member of
the
> crew - I agree with the guys who feel this is a studio-done, or
> studio-cleaned-up, product.

If crew members had to yell over the mics to be heard, then it could not
have been a cleaned up recording. The speakers are not yelling. You could
filter out the engine sound, but a yelling voice is clearly noticible and no
filtration could make it sound like those voices, they were not yelling. If
you accept the premise that Lancaster crew members had to yell to be heard
over the intercom, it must have been a reenacted scene.

> I don't doubt that the dialogue came primarily
> from a Lanc crew, but its too clean! Think of what its like in a WWII
bomber -
> you can barely hear yourself think. The drone of those Merlins would be
> present on the recordings no matter what measures were taken to screen
them out
> - it would be like recording a dialogue aboard the "Maid of the Mist", and
> somehow screening out the sounds of Niagra Falls, a few feet away. How
likely
> is that? My hunch is that the BBC guys did fly along on the mission, did
> record it, and brought it back and (at a minimum) cleaned it up before
> broadcast.
> Next, I'd like to hear a recording of the Reichsjägerweile - the "running
> commentary" radio broadcasts that occurred over Northern Europe during
massive
> Allied raids. Once the EW stations were overwhelmed, the Lulftwaffe
ground
> controllers switched to this commentary to tell units where and how the
battle
> raged - "Many trucks over Dortmund, heading Southward at 7,000 meters; at
> fifteen after the hour, Christmas trees and duppel were dropped over
Hanover
> for what appears to be a feint attack. All aircraft in sector FA are
ordered
> to land for refueling and await further orders. Pfadfinder reported
dropping
> flares on Osnabruck in advance of a strong raid..." etc. Hour after hour
of
> the details of a strike, from the enemy perspective. I think it would be
> highly interesting to hear, but as far as I know, there are no recordings
> available...?
>
> v/r
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR Aircrew
>
> "Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
> "Nothing but my forehead, sir."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP3+a6VBGDfMEdHggEQJfZQCgljEO2pVd4ZNo2k5TFgqHhm dmXDoAoIqR
p4oxoheyDePFAT26RP09rpLE
=lIPP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> av8r > wrote:
>
> >Hi Gord
> >
> >Nobody has addressed the issue of the use of the term bombardier by the
> >skipper.
> >
> >Cheers...Chris
>
> I know...I saw you mention it a few times but for the life of me
> I can't remember what term we (RCAF) used in the fifties...mind
> you now, this was an RAF crew I believe so I can't speak for
> them..
>
> I seem to be leaning toward 'Bomb Aimer' but without a lot of
> conviction.

The RAF at that time seem to have used both 'bomb aimer' and
'air bomber' the latter being often shortened to 'bomber'

IF the broadcast was a reconstruction based on a noisy recording
its quite easy to see how 'bomber' could become 'bombardier'

Keith

[av8r]

Hi Keith

The problem with my server is that I'm only getting a certain percentage
of the responses to any post (about 40 percent I reckon) so it's most
likely I did not see whatever was said about the bombardier.

Cheers...Chris

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Gordon) writes:
> Engine noise on aircraft has always been a problem, specifically on combat
> (non-passenger) types. On some aircraft, you can tell which position a person
> is sitting at by how much engine noise bleeds over to the ICS. Even something
> as small as a B-25 has noticeable engine noise and high freq tones bleeding
> over when you key the ICS, so I really can't see how a crew aboard a Lanc could
> use their normal speaking voices and be heard. As for the technology of
> noise-canceling microphones in 1943, I think its implausible that a Lanc would
> be fitted with a system equipped with such microphones for every member of the
> crew - I agree with the guys who feel this is a studio-done, or
> studio-cleaned-up, product. I don't doubt that the dialogue came primarily
> from a Lanc crew, but its too clean!

The first thing that popped out at me was the "No Engine Noise" thing.
Again, not only are the engines loud, but they're passing vibrations
into the structure at 2000-3000 Hz (engine revs) and 1000-1500 Hz
(prop revs) each. There should be a bug change in the character of
the background noise when the Flight Engineer pushes the props
up. (Increase RPM) Even with isolated engine mounts, the whole
airplane, and everything/everyone in it will be bucketing away. I
doubt any kind of 1940s recording technology, whether it be disk
(etching grooves in flight - how quiet will that be?) or wire (rare,
and, in fact, it could be that only the Germans had wire or steel tape
(sort of like a bandsaw blade) recorders at that time (Don't tell the
Rootin' Teuton I said so). If the sound were that well isolated, why
do the machnie gunes come through so well?
One last thing - This is supposed to be a Lancaster or Halifax (I
makes no difference for this point) on a night raid. That means that
all the crew would be on Oxygen, and they'd be using the mask
microphones. I don't here anyone breathing. They're talking, I'd
bloody well expect them to be breathing.

> Next, I'd like to hear a recording of the Reichsjägerweile - the "running
> commentary" radio broadcasts that occurred over Northern Europe during massive
> Allied raids. Once the EW stations were overwhelmed, the Lulftwaffe ground
> controllers switched to this commentary to tell units where and how the battle
> raged - "Many trucks over Dortmund, heading Southward at 7,000 meters; at
> fifteen after the hour, Christmas trees and duppel were dropped over Hanover
> for what appears to be a feint attack. All aircraft in sector FA are ordered
> to land for refueling and await further orders. Pfadfinder reported dropping
> flares on Osnabruck in advance of a strong raid..." etc. Hour after hour of
> the details of a strike, from the enemy perspective. I think it would be
> highly interesting to hear, but as far as I know, there are no recordings
> available...?

A combination of a Rugby play-by-play broadcast and the morning
traffic report. But a cleaver colution to the Command and CCOntrol
problem, and, in, some wwys, superior from the OPSEC point of view.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[William Donzelli]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...

> The equipment used was apparently restricted to the range
> 60 Hz to 4500 Hz

The microphones and interphone equipment, on the other hand, had a
frequency response of roughly 300-3000 Hz. Depending on the type of
microphone used (T-17, T-44, British HI, or a zillion others - the
Station Boxes (probably Bendix MI-22s) could handle lots of different
types of microphones), the response characteristics might be a little
different, but not much. The interphone amplifier likely also has a
filter to supress anything out of the 300-3000 Hz range. There were
noise cancelling mikes back then, but they were not very good.

Did someone mention a disc recorder being used? Frankly, I can not
think of anything worse to take on a big bomber. The virbrations from
the engines would go right thru to the cutting head mechanically, even
with a good shockmount.

--
William Donzelli

[Blair Maynard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Gordon) writes:
> The first thing that popped out at me was the "No Engine Noise" thing.
> Again, not only are the engines loud, but they're passing vibrations
> into the structure at 2000-3000 Hz (engine revs) and 1000-1500 Hz
> (prop revs) each. There should be a bug change in the character of
> the background noise when the Flight Engineer pushes the props
> up. (Increase RPM) Even with isolated engine mounts, the whole
> airplane, and everything/everyone in it will be bucketing away. I
> doubt any kind of 1940s recording technology, whether it be disk
> (etching grooves in flight - how quiet will that be?) or wire (rare,
> and, in fact, it could be that only the Germans had wire or steel tape
> (sort of like a bandsaw blade) recorders at that time (Don't tell the
> Rootin' Teuton I said so). If the sound were that well isolated, why
> do the machnie gunes come through so well?
> One last thing - This is supposed to be a Lancaster or Halifax (I
> makes no difference for this point) on a night raid. That means that
> all the crew would be on Oxygen, and they'd be using the mask
> microphones. I don't here anyone breathing. They're talking, I'd
> bloody well expect them to be breathing.
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

It could be a genuine recording. Did you know they have actual recordings of
Snoopy shooting down the Red Baron during WW1? Yeah, I think it was recorded
by a company called the Royal Guardsmen or something.... :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP4EMzlBGDfMEdHggEQIHegCfSGXwu4EHyKxWQJXdss8lc5 17sPUAmgLN
VZiPBRpC0xdnxydS8aHhOVJx
=iBGr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Keith Willshaw]

"William Donzelli" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > The equipment used was apparently restricted to the range
> > 60 Hz to 4500 Hz
>
> The microphones and interphone equipment, on the other hand, had a
> frequency response of roughly 300-3000 Hz. Depending on the type of
> microphone used (T-17, T-44, British HI, or a zillion others - the
> Station Boxes (probably Bendix MI-22s) could handle lots of different
> types of microphones), the response characteristics might be a little
> different, but not much. The interphone amplifier likely also has a
> filter to supress anything out of the 300-3000 Hz range. There were
> noise cancelling mikes back then, but they were not very good.
>
> Did someone mention a disc recorder being used? Frankly, I can not
> think of anything worse to take on a big bomber. The virbrations from
> the engines would go right thru to the cutting head mechanically, even
> with a good shockmount.
>

They did use a disc recorder for the simple reason that was
all they had available , the sound engineer reported having
to keep the blank discs inside his flight suit to keep them
warm enough to cut.

see
http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.co.uk/bh/repwar/wr_intro.htm
and
http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.co.uk/bh/repwar/wr_recorders.htm
http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.co.uk/bh/repwar/wr_midget.htm

Keith

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Peter Stickney
> writes
>In article >,
> (Gordon) writes:
>> Engine noise on aircraft has always been a problem, specifically on combat
>> (non-passenger) types. On some aircraft, you can tell which position a person
>> is sitting at by how much engine noise bleeds over to the ICS. Even something
>> as small as a B-25 has noticeable engine noise and high freq tones bleeding
>> over when you key the ICS, so I really can't see how a crew aboard a Lanc
>could
>> use their normal speaking voices and be heard. As for the technology of
>> noise-canceling microphones in 1943, I think its implausible that a Lanc would
>> be fitted with a system equipped with such microphones for every member of the
>> crew - I agree with the guys who feel this is a studio-done, or
>> studio-cleaned-up, product. I don't doubt that the dialogue came primarily
>> from a Lanc crew, but its too clean!
>
>The first thing that popped out at me was the "No Engine Noise" thing.
>Again, not only are the engines loud, but they're passing vibrations
>into the structure at 2000-3000 Hz (engine revs) and 1000-1500 Hz
>(prop revs) each. There should be a bug change in the character of
>the background noise when the Flight Engineer pushes the props
>up. (Increase RPM) Even with isolated engine mounts, the whole
>airplane, and everything/everyone in it will be bucketing away. I
>doubt any kind of 1940s recording technology, whether it be disk
>(etching grooves in flight - how quiet will that be?) or wire (rare,
>and, in fact, it could be that only the Germans had wire or steel tape
>(sort of like a bandsaw blade) recorders at that time (Don't tell the
>Rootin' Teuton I said so). If the sound were that well isolated, why
>do the machnie gunes come through so well?
>One last thing - This is supposed to be a Lancaster or Halifax (I
>makes no difference for this point) on a night raid. That means that
>all the crew would be on Oxygen, and they'd be using the mask
>microphones. I don't here anyone breathing. They're talking, I'd
>bloody well expect them to be breathing.

I've only just caught up with this thread, so apologies if I'm repeating
anything that went before.

Breathing: If most of the crew were using their mask switches properly
they would only have the mike switch to 'on' immediately prior to
talking and would switch them off again when finished, so breathing
sounds should be at a minimum (although I seem to pick up one individual
who seems to be breathing without talking at times, perhaps WV-T?).
Mind you, a WWII era mask tends reflect and thus muffle the voice a bit,
and muffling is not very apparent in the recording.

However, there is much more that is suspect in this sequence. The pilot
is instructed to keep weaving after the navigator has announced half a
minute to go before bomb drop, and before the fighter puts in an
appearance. If the bomb aimer were staring through the bomb sight
stabilisation glass at that time, to get a straight run in on the
target, the last thing he would have wanted was a weave. And just who
is asking for the weave, and why? Then the pilot is told to steer
'left, left' without having been first told to stop weaving.

Then the pilot asks for more revs. Why - just at the time the bomb
aimer needs constant speed maintained for his bomb sight predicting
computer? This doesn't feel quite right.

Then the rear gunner opens up with his four Brownings and amid the noise
you can hear an individual gun start and stop cycling. Four Brownings,
at a total 80 rounds per second would sound more like a waterfall. Also
these shots did not have the timbre of a .303 to me, and although I'll
allow that recording circumstances might have made the shots sound
funny, what was picking them up? The mask mike of the rear gunner?
That might have picked up a muffled roar - and I guess we can assume it
would remain switched on in these circumstances so he can instruct the
pilot if need be. But would it pick up the crisp cycling gunshots from
outside the turret? There would be more clanging from the breeches if
anything.

Suspicious - but if Gord Beaman can recall the noise a couple of
Brownings made in the front turret I will be willing to be corrected.
Otherwise - more redolent of a few STENs being fired into a crate in the
BBC car park :-)

Finally, the pilot is instructed to weave again at a time when the
bomber should have been flying straight and level for the post-drop
picture to be taken - which would have resulted in a VERY nice piccy of
the drop zone.

I am sure that Wynford VT really did fly that night and his journalistic
skills were put to good use, but this sequence does not add up as a
complete real time item.
>
>
Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Keith Willshaw]

"Dave Eadsforth" > wrote in message
...

>
> Finally, the pilot is instructed to weave again at a time when the
> bomber should have been flying straight and level for the post-drop
> picture to be taken - which would have resulted in a VERY nice piccy of
> the drop zone.
>

Especially when you recall that no picture meant that the mission
didnt count towards the tour total.

Keith

[Pooh Bear]

Brian wrote:

> Sounds fake - too calm - even considering the Brit resolve.

Yup - quality is far too high for recording methods of the day and, to a
Brit, the voices don't have the correct 'period feel' - sound like ppl
today.


Graham

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Blair Maynard
> writes
>It could be a genuine recording. Did you know they have actual recordings of
>Snoopy shooting down the Red Baron during WW1? Yeah, I think it was recorded
>by a company called the Royal Guardsmen or something.... :)

Red Guardsmen I think, quite a nice track as well!

--
John