Audio of Lancaster Under nightfighter attack

[Stolly]

This has been posted before but there has been some debate as to its
authenticity.

Its authenticity is now proved beyond doubt

http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.co.uk/bh/repwar/lanc.jpg

Reg Pidsley (left) with Wynford Vaughan Thomas in front of Lancaster F for
Freddie of 207 Squadron prior to flying on a Berlin raid, 3rd September
1943. Reg recorded the voices of the crew during the flight. He later
commented that when the bombs were released, "it was like going up in a
lift" and the cutting head dug into the disc.

Original, disputed clip from recording

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

Start of entire BBC recording

http://www.stolly.org.uk/1-001.mp3

Under attack

http://www.stolly.org.uk/2-001.mp3

Home safe

http://www.stolly.org.uk/3-001.mp3

I have the whole recording from the sound archive at the IWM.

[[email protected]]

"Stolly" > wrote:

>This has been posted before but there has been some debate as to its
>authenticity.
>
>Its authenticity is now proved beyond doubt
>

Well...I hate to be a stick-in-the-mud but I just cannot see how
this could be authentic. Please tell me how they managed to
filter out the sound of 4 merlin engines at full power?. This guy
is apparently talking all through the take-off run in a barely
above conversational tone of voice. This just cannot happen, not
on a Lancaster. There's so much noise on takeoff that nobody uses
intercom then. The Pilots and Flight Engineer uses hand signals
to indicate orders to vary power and to raise the gear etc.

Sorry, I think it's faked.
--

-Gord.

[Blair Maynard]

Even if the mics could filter out the sound of the engines, going down the
runway at max power would cause some vibration (not only from the engines
but from the landing gear bumping) in the speaker's voice. I don't hear any.

I don't believe it is a real recording of an actual mission.

The fact that somebody actually did get into a Lancaster, and tried to
record what was going on, doesn't mean that what you are proffering is the
actual recording. I would bet the recording didn't work at all, they got
back home and taped it in a studio. Maybe with the actual crew or just
actors. Maybe even somebody took notes and the words are true.

Or maybe they had this tape prepared ahead of time just in case the real
taping didn't come out. And used that. I have no problem believing that this
recording was made during the war and released as an actual recording of a
real bombing mission. People were in no position to question the validity of
such a recording back then.

Reporters faking stuff has been around for a long time.

"Stolly" > wrote in message
...
> This has been posted before but there has been some debate as to its
> authenticity.
>
> Its authenticity is now proved beyond doubt
>
> http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.co.uk/bh/repwar/lanc.jpg
>
> Reg Pidsley (left) with Wynford Vaughan Thomas in front of Lancaster F for
> Freddie of 207 Squadron prior to flying on a Berlin raid, 3rd September
> 1943. Reg recorded the voices of the crew during the flight. He later
> commented that when the bombs were released, "it was like going up in a
> lift" and the cutting head dug into the disc.
>
> Original, disputed clip from recording
>
> http://www.stolly.org.uk/lanc.wav
>
> Start of entire BBC recording
>
> http://www.stolly.org.uk/1-001.mp3
>
> Under attack
>
> http://www.stolly.org.uk/2-001.mp3
>
> Home safe
>
> http://www.stolly.org.uk/3-001.mp3
>
> I have the whole recording from the sound archive at the IWM.
>
>

[tscottme]

Gord Beaman > wrote in message
...
>
> Well...I hate to be a stick-in-the-mud but I just cannot see how
> this could be authentic. Please tell me how they managed to
> filter out the sound of 4 merlin engines at full power?. This guy
> is apparently talking all through the take-off run in a barely
> above conversational tone of voice. This just cannot happen, not
> on a Lancaster. There's so much noise on takeoff that nobody uses
> intercom then. The Pilots and Flight Engineer uses hand signals
> to indicate orders to vary power and to raise the gear etc.
>
> Sorry, I think it's faked.
> --
>
> -Gord.

Not to mention the quality of the carbon microphones that must have been
used back then. It sounds like a professional reenactment or a training
tape. Not the slightest hint of engine noise and the voices sound
clearer and cleaner than through a modern intercom system.

Sounds fake to me.

--

Scott
--------
"So far, fewer troops have been killed by hostile fire since the end of
major combat in Iraq than civilians were murdered in Washington, D.C.,
last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to 262 murders in D.C.). How many
years has it been since we declared the end of major U.S. combat
operations against Marion Barry's regime? How long before we just give
up and pull out of that hellish quagmire known as Washington, D.C.?" Ann
Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/110503.htm

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Blair Maynard
> writes
>Even if the mics could filter out the sound of the engines, going down the
>runway at max power would cause some vibration (not only from the engines
>but from the landing gear bumping) in the speaker's voice. I don't hear any.
>
>I don't believe it is a real recording of an actual mission.
>
>The fact that somebody actually did get into a Lancaster, and tried to
>record what was going on, doesn't mean that what you are proffering is the
>actual recording. I would bet the recording didn't work at all, they got
>back home and taped it in a studio. Maybe with the actual crew or just
>actors. Maybe even somebody took notes and the words are true.
>
>Or maybe they had this tape prepared ahead of time just in case the real
>taping didn't come out. And used that. I have no problem believing that this
>recording was made during the war and released as an actual recording of a
>real bombing mission. People were in no position to question the validity of
>such a recording back then.

Tape?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Stolly]

It was recorded on a disk not tape.

If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that

A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked.

B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later the
same day.

C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the conspiracy.

D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the had a
renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC reporter there as reported here
http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/default.htm . They got together 40
years later for the express purpose of remembering the recording and
broadcasting of this recording. Are you REALLY suggesting that they got
together 40 years later to remember something that never happened ?

Seriously you are ignoring all the above in favour of not believing that the
BBC knew how to filter noise. They were a world class broadcasting service.
You would certainly imagine they had sound engineers that knew what they
were doing.

I have the whole 40 minute recording from the IWM sound archive. I payed
£20 for it. Are you saying that I should report the Imperial War Museum for
commiting fraud in that they are knowingly selling faked recordings ? Or
perhaps a museum with a international reputation has been duped themselves
and that you know better based on a hunch that the engines are not loud
enough ?





"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Blair Maynard
> > writes
> >Even if the mics could filter out the sound of the engines, going down
the
> >runway at max power would cause some vibration (not only from the engines
> >but from the landing gear bumping) in the speaker's voice. I don't hear
any.
> >
> >I don't believe it is a real recording of an actual mission.
> >
> >The fact that somebody actually did get into a Lancaster, and tried to
> >record what was going on, doesn't mean that what you are proffering is
the
> >actual recording. I would bet the recording didn't work at all, they got
> >back home and taped it in a studio. Maybe with the actual crew or just
> >actors. Maybe even somebody took notes and the words are true.
> >
> >Or maybe they had this tape prepared ahead of time just in case the real
> >taping didn't come out. And used that. I have no problem believing that
this
> >recording was made during the war and released as an actual recording of
a
> >real bombing mission. People were in no position to question the validity
of
> >such a recording back then.
>
> Tape?
>
> Mike
> --
> M.J.Powell

[[email protected]]

"tscottme" > wrote:

>Gord Beaman > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Well...I hate to be a stick-in-the-mud but I just cannot see how
>> this could be authentic. Please tell me how they managed to
>> filter out the sound of 4 merlin engines at full power?. This guy
>> is apparently talking all through the take-off run in a barely
>> above conversational tone of voice. This just cannot happen, not
>> on a Lancaster. There's so much noise on takeoff that nobody uses
>> intercom then. The Pilots and Flight Engineer uses hand signals
>> to indicate orders to vary power and to raise the gear etc.
>>
>> Sorry, I think it's faked.
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>Not to mention the quality of the carbon microphones that must have been
>used back then. It sounds like a professional reenactment or a training
>tape. Not the slightest hint of engine noise and the voices sound
>clearer and cleaner than through a modern intercom system.
>
>Sounds fake to me.

Quite true, we did use carbon mics (at least in peacetime
Lancasters - early fifties). They were type T-17, for pic see:
http://members.aol.com/tcsopr/t17mic.htm
--

-Gord.

[Tex Houston]

"Blair Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> I don't believe it is a real recording of an actual mission.
>
> The fact that somebody actually did get into a Lancaster, and tried to
> record what was going on, doesn't mean that what you are proffering is the
> actual recording. I would bet the recording didn't work at all, they got
> back home and taped it in a studio. Maybe with the actual crew or just
> actors. Maybe even somebody took notes and the words are true.
>
> Or maybe they had this tape prepared ahead of time just in case the real
> taping didn't come out. And used that. I have no problem believing that
this
> recording was made during the war and released as an actual recording of a
> real bombing mission. People were in no position to question the validity
of
> such a recording back then.


Wire recording...possibly. Tape? Do you know something we don't?

Tex

[[email protected]]

"Stolly" > wrote:

>It was recorded on a disk not tape.
>
>If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that
>
>A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked.
>

Hardly now...why does it follow?..don't be silly sir...

Incidentally, although it certainly isn't any kind of proof but
our Lancs didn't have that row of small windows all down along
the stbd side of the a/c, but if you Google for the 'Manchester
Bomber' it does, exactly like these.

Are you sure that these two guys aren't standing beside a
Manchester?. There's not enough of the a/c showing for me to
tell.


>B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later the
>same day.
>

And that sounds impossible for the BBC??...as I said, don't be
silly sir...


>C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the conspiracy.
>
>D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the had a
>renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC reporter there as reported here
>http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/default.htm . They got together 40
>years later for the express purpose of remembering the recording and
>broadcasting of this recording. Are you REALLY suggesting that they got
>together 40 years later to remember something that never happened ?
>
>Seriously you are ignoring all the above in favour of not believing that the
>BBC knew how to filter noise. They were a world class broadcasting service.
>You would certainly imagine they had sound engineers that knew what they
>were doing.
>
>I have the whole 40 minute recording from the IWM sound archive. I payed
>£20 for it. Are you saying that I should report the Imperial War Museum for
>commiting fraud in that they are knowingly selling faked recordings ? Or
>perhaps a museum with a international reputation has been duped themselves
>and that you know better based on a hunch that the engines are not loud
>enough ?
>
>

I know that this looks bad for me...but I find it very difficult
to believe that the announcer is sitting in a Lanc as he talks
about "...moving down the runway and just now we lift off and
climb away..." etc. If you ever actually sat in a Lancaster
during takeoff you'd know...the noise is deafeningly
loud...deafening...

Literally.

The Canadian government pays me a 35% hearing disability pension
for listening to that deafening sound (for about 575 hours)
along with the exposure that I suffered on other less loud a/c
since.

You have to take some of the responsibility for this too Stolly,
you made the barefaced claim that it was authentic with no cite
at all. This time you supplied a cite but didn't point out any
connection to this recording in that article. I searched all
through your article and found this somewhere in there (I believe
it was in 'A brief history')

>quote:
>The famous BBC recording of a raid on Berlin, commentary by
>Wynford Vaughan-Thomas, was made on 3rd September 1943
>with Flt Lt Ken Letford's crew in EM-F for Freddie.
>unquote

So there you are...do I think that it's authentic?...well, I have
no doubt that it was made during the war, and probably for PR
reasons so it certainly has value (had?)...do I think that it
used the talents of the flight crew?...sure.

Do I believe that there's some conspiricy?...nah.

Do I think that it was RECORDED IN FLIGHT on a
LANCASTER?...sorry, I just cannot believe that.

As talented as the BBC techs might have been, the 'white noise'
of four Merlins at full bellow is fearsome to behold yet there's
almost no evidence of it here (I can occasionally hear what might
be some faint engine sounds 'way in the background).

The announcer sounds relatively calm and is speaking relatively
quietly, certainly not the case if he were actually shouting to
be heard above the unholy racket of 4 Merlins. It's human nature
to shout when you cannot hear...notice hearing impaired people,
they speak loudly because they can't hear themselves very well.
--

-Gord.

[Stolly]

As you correctly point out the Manchester did have that row of windows.

As i am sure you also know the Lanc is a very close relative of the
Manchester and early Lancasters were uncompleted Manchesters with new wings
etc.

So many early Lancasters started life as Manchesters and did indeed have the
windows. Since this is 1943 it is entirely correct that early Lancasters
were still in service.

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Stolly" > wrote:
>
> >It was recorded on a disk not tape.
> >
> >If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that
> >
> >A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked.
> >
>
> Hardly now...why does it follow?..don't be silly sir...
>
> Incidentally, although it certainly isn't any kind of proof but
> our Lancs didn't have that row of small windows all down along
> the stbd side of the a/c, but if you Google for the 'Manchester
> Bomber' it does, exactly like these.
>
> Are you sure that these two guys aren't standing beside a
> Manchester?. There's not enough of the a/c showing for me to
> tell.
>
>
> >B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later the
> >same day.
> >
>
> And that sounds impossible for the BBC??...as I said, don't be
> silly sir...
>
>
> >C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the
conspiracy.
> >
> >D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the had
a
> >renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC reporter there as reported here
> >http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/default.htm . They got together 40
> >years later for the express purpose of remembering the recording and
> >broadcasting of this recording. Are you REALLY suggesting that they got
> >together 40 years later to remember something that never happened ?
> >
> >Seriously you are ignoring all the above in favour of not believing that
the
> >BBC knew how to filter noise. They were a world class broadcasting
service.
> >You would certainly imagine they had sound engineers that knew what they
> >were doing.
> >
> >I have the whole 40 minute recording from the IWM sound archive. I payed
> >£20 for it. Are you saying that I should report the Imperial War Museum
for
> >commiting fraud in that they are knowingly selling faked recordings ? Or
> >perhaps a museum with a international reputation has been duped
themselves
> >and that you know better based on a hunch that the engines are not loud
> >enough ?
> >
> >
>
> I know that this looks bad for me...but I find it very difficult
> to believe that the announcer is sitting in a Lanc as he talks
> about "...moving down the runway and just now we lift off and
> climb away..." etc. If you ever actually sat in a Lancaster
> during takeoff you'd know...the noise is deafeningly
> loud...deafening...
>
> Literally.
>
> The Canadian government pays me a 35% hearing disability pension
> for listening to that deafening sound (for about 575 hours)
> along with the exposure that I suffered on other less loud a/c
> since.
>
> You have to take some of the responsibility for this too Stolly,
> you made the barefaced claim that it was authentic with no cite
> at all. This time you supplied a cite but didn't point out any
> connection to this recording in that article. I searched all
> through your article and found this somewhere in there (I believe
> it was in 'A brief history')
>
> >quote:
> >The famous BBC recording of a raid on Berlin, commentary by
> >Wynford Vaughan-Thomas, was made on 3rd September 1943
> >with Flt Lt Ken Letford's crew in EM-F for Freddie.
> >unquote
>
> So there you are...do I think that it's authentic?...well, I have
> no doubt that it was made during the war, and probably for PR
> reasons so it certainly has value (had?)...do I think that it
> used the talents of the flight crew?...sure.
>
> Do I believe that there's some conspiricy?...nah.
>
> Do I think that it was RECORDED IN FLIGHT on a
> LANCASTER?...sorry, I just cannot believe that.
>
> As talented as the BBC techs might have been, the 'white noise'
> of four Merlins at full bellow is fearsome to behold yet there's
> almost no evidence of it here (I can occasionally hear what might
> be some faint engine sounds 'way in the background).
>
> The announcer sounds relatively calm and is speaking relatively
> quietly, certainly not the case if he were actually shouting to
> be heard above the unholy racket of 4 Merlins. It's human nature
> to shout when you cannot hear...notice hearing impaired people,
> they speak loudly because they can't hear themselves very well.
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Stolly]

And if you look at the markings it is indeed F for Freddie, as mentioned in
the last clip I posted.

Sorry for not posting the things about the reunion by they way, i should
have but did not have time when i made the original post.

So on one hand we have the recording, the photograph and the 207 squadron
association all of which seem to add up and support each other.

On the other we have the lack of engine noise but without any proof that the
BBC were in fact unable to deal with it, just a hunch.

If you still think its a fake then we'll have to agree to disagree, but
there is a weight of evidence to prove otherwise.

"Stolly" > wrote in message
...
> As you correctly point out the Manchester did have that row of windows.
>
> As i am sure you also know the Lanc is a very close relative of the
> Manchester and early Lancasters were uncompleted Manchesters with new
wings
> etc.
>
> So many early Lancasters started life as Manchesters and did indeed have
the
> windows. Since this is 1943 it is entirely correct that early Lancasters
> were still in service.
>
> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Stolly" > wrote:
> >
> > >It was recorded on a disk not tape.
> > >
> > >If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that
> > >
> > >A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked.
> > >
> >
> > Hardly now...why does it follow?..don't be silly sir...
> >
> > Incidentally, although it certainly isn't any kind of proof but
> > our Lancs didn't have that row of small windows all down along
> > the stbd side of the a/c, but if you Google for the 'Manchester
> > Bomber' it does, exactly like these.
> >
> > Are you sure that these two guys aren't standing beside a
> > Manchester?. There's not enough of the a/c showing for me to
> > tell.
> >
> >
> > >B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later
the
> > >same day.
> > >
> >
> > And that sounds impossible for the BBC??...as I said, don't be
> > silly sir...
> >
> >
> > >C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the
> conspiracy.
> > >
> > >D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the
had
> a
> > >renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC reporter there as reported
here
> > >http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/default.htm . They got together
40
> > >years later for the express purpose of remembering the recording and
> > >broadcasting of this recording. Are you REALLY suggesting that they
got
> > >together 40 years later to remember something that never happened ?
> > >
> > >Seriously you are ignoring all the above in favour of not believing
that
> the
> > >BBC knew how to filter noise. They were a world class broadcasting
> service.
> > >You would certainly imagine they had sound engineers that knew what
they
> > >were doing.
> > >
> > >I have the whole 40 minute recording from the IWM sound archive. I
payed
> > >£20 for it. Are you saying that I should report the Imperial War
Museum
> for
> > >commiting fraud in that they are knowingly selling faked recordings ?
Or
> > >perhaps a museum with a international reputation has been duped
> themselves
> > >and that you know better based on a hunch that the engines are not loud
> > >enough ?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I know that this looks bad for me...but I find it very difficult
> > to believe that the announcer is sitting in a Lanc as he talks
> > about "...moving down the runway and just now we lift off and
> > climb away..." etc. If you ever actually sat in a Lancaster
> > during takeoff you'd know...the noise is deafeningly
> > loud...deafening...
> >
> > Literally.
> >
> > The Canadian government pays me a 35% hearing disability pension
> > for listening to that deafening sound (for about 575 hours)
> > along with the exposure that I suffered on other less loud a/c
> > since.
> >
> > You have to take some of the responsibility for this too Stolly,
> > you made the barefaced claim that it was authentic with no cite
> > at all. This time you supplied a cite but didn't point out any
> > connection to this recording in that article. I searched all
> > through your article and found this somewhere in there (I believe
> > it was in 'A brief history')
> >
> > >quote:
> > >The famous BBC recording of a raid on Berlin, commentary by
> > >Wynford Vaughan-Thomas, was made on 3rd September 1943
> > >with Flt Lt Ken Letford's crew in EM-F for Freddie.
> > >unquote
> >
> > So there you are...do I think that it's authentic?...well, I have
> > no doubt that it was made during the war, and probably for PR
> > reasons so it certainly has value (had?)...do I think that it
> > used the talents of the flight crew?...sure.
> >
> > Do I believe that there's some conspiricy?...nah.
> >
> > Do I think that it was RECORDED IN FLIGHT on a
> > LANCASTER?...sorry, I just cannot believe that.
> >
> > As talented as the BBC techs might have been, the 'white noise'
> > of four Merlins at full bellow is fearsome to behold yet there's
> > almost no evidence of it here (I can occasionally hear what might
> > be some faint engine sounds 'way in the background).
> >
> > The announcer sounds relatively calm and is speaking relatively
> > quietly, certainly not the case if he were actually shouting to
> > be heard above the unholy racket of 4 Merlins. It's human nature
> > to shout when you cannot hear...notice hearing impaired people,
> > they speak loudly because they can't hear themselves very well.
> > --
> >
> > -Gord.
>
>

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, "Gord
writes
>>
>>
>
>I know that this looks bad for me...but I find it very difficult
>to believe that the announcer is sitting in a Lanc as he talks
>about "...moving down the runway and just now we lift off and
>climb away..." etc. If you ever actually sat in a Lancaster
>during takeoff you'd know...the noise is deafeningly
>loud...deafening...

Noise-cancelling microphone used by Vaughan-Thomas, mixed by the
engineer with intercom? As frequently used by sports commentators.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[[email protected]]

"Stolly" > wrote:

>And if you look at the markings it is indeed F for Freddie, as mentioned in
>the last clip I posted.
>

Yes indeed, I noticed that too, and yes it's true that the Lanc
was 'sort of' derived from the Manchester...matter of fact I
found a Lancaster with that row of small windows down it's 'port'
side (in Google), but couldn't find a pic of the stbd side. I do
know that 'ours' didn't have them on either side, mind you, this
was in the 'fifties'.

>Sorry for not posting the things about the reunion by they way, i should
>have but did not have time when i made the original post.
>

Not fault finding here, just a statement.


>So on one hand we have the recording, the photograph and the 207 squadron
>association all of which seem to add up and support each other.
>
>On the other we have the lack of engine noise but without any proof that the
>BBC were in fact unable to deal with it, just a hunch.
>
>If you still think its a fake then we'll have to agree to disagree, but
>there is a weight of evidence to prove otherwise.
>

Well, I realize that it's not 'proof' at all, but I really
remember a lot about the Lanc Stolly, it was my first aircraft
(as a flight engineer) and it's quite remarkable how much I 'do'
remember.

Mind you, I don't remember what I had for breakfast today (or
whether!) but I clearly remember the exact fuel tank quantities
of all 8 tanks, the 'pretakeoff, posttakeoff, prelanding and
postlanding checklists (they were 'memory items', we had no
written checklists as now) and scads of other facts, one of which
was the amount of noise. Mind you, I was only 21 then too!...

In any event, it's been a pleasure to discuss something with
someone who feels strongly about something without someone
resorting to fisticuffs almost. Thanks for that sir.

Cheers




>"Stolly" > wrote in message
...
>> As you correctly point out the Manchester did have that row of windows.
>>
>> As i am sure you also know the Lanc is a very close relative of the
>> Manchester and early Lancasters were uncompleted Manchesters with new
>wings
>> etc.
>>
>> So many early Lancasters started life as Manchesters and did indeed have
>the
>> windows. Since this is 1943 it is entirely correct that early Lancasters
>> were still in service.
>>
>> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Stolly" > wrote:
>> >
>> > >It was recorded on a disk not tape.
>> > >
>> > >If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that
>> > >
>> > >A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Hardly now...why does it follow?..don't be silly sir...
>> >
>> > Incidentally, although it certainly isn't any kind of proof but
>> > our Lancs didn't have that row of small windows all down along
>> > the stbd side of the a/c, but if you Google for the 'Manchester
>> > Bomber' it does, exactly like these.
>> >
>> > Are you sure that these two guys aren't standing beside a
>> > Manchester?. There's not enough of the a/c showing for me to
>> > tell.
>> >
>> >
>> > >B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later
>the
>> > >same day.
>> > >
>> >
>> > And that sounds impossible for the BBC??...as I said, don't be
>> > silly sir...
>> >
>> >
>> > >C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the
>> conspiracy.
>> > >
>> > >D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the
>had
>> a
>> > >renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC reporter there as reported
>here
>> > >http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/default.htm . They got together
>40
>> > >years later for the express purpose of remembering the recording and
>> > >broadcasting of this recording. Are you REALLY suggesting that they
>got
>> > >together 40 years later to remember something that never happened ?
>> > >
>> > >Seriously you are ignoring all the above in favour of not believing
>that
>> the
>> > >BBC knew how to filter noise. They were a world class broadcasting
>> service.
>> > >You would certainly imagine they had sound engineers that knew what
>they
>> > >were doing.
>> > >
>> > >I have the whole 40 minute recording from the IWM sound archive. I
>payed
>> > >£20 for it. Are you saying that I should report the Imperial War
>Museum
>> for
>> > >commiting fraud in that they are knowingly selling faked recordings ?
>Or
>> > >perhaps a museum with a international reputation has been duped
>> themselves
>> > >and that you know better based on a hunch that the engines are not loud
>> > >enough ?
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > I know that this looks bad for me...but I find it very difficult
>> > to believe that the announcer is sitting in a Lanc as he talks
>> > about "...moving down the runway and just now we lift off and
>> > climb away..." etc. If you ever actually sat in a Lancaster
>> > during takeoff you'd know...the noise is deafeningly
>> > loud...deafening...
>> >
>> > Literally.
>> >
>> > The Canadian government pays me a 35% hearing disability pension
>> > for listening to that deafening sound (for about 575 hours)
>> > along with the exposure that I suffered on other less loud a/c
>> > since.
>> >
>> > You have to take some of the responsibility for this too Stolly,
>> > you made the barefaced claim that it was authentic with no cite
>> > at all. This time you supplied a cite but didn't point out any
>> > connection to this recording in that article. I searched all
>> > through your article and found this somewhere in there (I believe
>> > it was in 'A brief history')
>> >
>> > >quote:
>> > >The famous BBC recording of a raid on Berlin, commentary by
>> > >Wynford Vaughan-Thomas, was made on 3rd September 1943
>> > >with Flt Lt Ken Letford's crew in EM-F for Freddie.
>> > >unquote
>> >
>> > So there you are...do I think that it's authentic?...well, I have
>> > no doubt that it was made during the war, and probably for PR
>> > reasons so it certainly has value (had?)...do I think that it
>> > used the talents of the flight crew?...sure.
>> >
>> > Do I believe that there's some conspiricy?...nah.
>> >
>> > Do I think that it was RECORDED IN FLIGHT on a
>> > LANCASTER?...sorry, I just cannot believe that.
>> >
>> > As talented as the BBC techs might have been, the 'white noise'
>> > of four Merlins at full bellow is fearsome to behold yet there's
>> > almost no evidence of it here (I can occasionally hear what might
>> > be some faint engine sounds 'way in the background).
>> >
>> > The announcer sounds relatively calm and is speaking relatively
>> > quietly, certainly not the case if he were actually shouting to
>> > be heard above the unholy racket of 4 Merlins. It's human nature
>> > to shout when you cannot hear...notice hearing impaired people,
>> > they speak loudly because they can't hear themselves very well.
>> > --
>> >
>> > -Gord.
>>
>>
>

--

-Gord.

[Stolly]

Likewise a pleasure to talk to someone who knows the subject well, first
hand no less :)

Cheers !


"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Stolly" > wrote:
>
> >And if you look at the markings it is indeed F for Freddie, as mentioned
in
> >the last clip I posted.
> >
>
> Yes indeed, I noticed that too, and yes it's true that the Lanc
> was 'sort of' derived from the Manchester...matter of fact I
> found a Lancaster with that row of small windows down it's 'port'
> side (in Google), but couldn't find a pic of the stbd side. I do
> know that 'ours' didn't have them on either side, mind you, this
> was in the 'fifties'.
>
> >Sorry for not posting the things about the reunion by they way, i should
> >have but did not have time when i made the original post.
> >
>
> Not fault finding here, just a statement.
>
>
> >So on one hand we have the recording, the photograph and the 207 squadron
> >association all of which seem to add up and support each other.
> >
> >On the other we have the lack of engine noise but without any proof that
the
> >BBC were in fact unable to deal with it, just a hunch.
> >
> >If you still think its a fake then we'll have to agree to disagree, but
> >there is a weight of evidence to prove otherwise.
> >
>
> Well, I realize that it's not 'proof' at all, but I really
> remember a lot about the Lanc Stolly, it was my first aircraft
> (as a flight engineer) and it's quite remarkable how much I 'do'
> remember.
>
> Mind you, I don't remember what I had for breakfast today (or
> whether!) but I clearly remember the exact fuel tank quantities
> of all 8 tanks, the 'pretakeoff, posttakeoff, prelanding and
> postlanding checklists (they were 'memory items', we had no
> written checklists as now) and scads of other facts, one of which
> was the amount of noise. Mind you, I was only 21 then too!...
>
> In any event, it's been a pleasure to discuss something with
> someone who feels strongly about something without someone
> resorting to fisticuffs almost. Thanks for that sir.
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
> >"Stolly" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> As you correctly point out the Manchester did have that row of windows.
> >>
> >> As i am sure you also know the Lanc is a very close relative of the
> >> Manchester and early Lancasters were uncompleted Manchesters with new
> >wings
> >> etc.
> >>
> >> So many early Lancasters started life as Manchesters and did indeed
have
> >the
> >> windows. Since this is 1943 it is entirely correct that early
Lancasters
> >> were still in service.
> >>
> >> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "Stolly" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >It was recorded on a disk not tape.
> >> > >
> >> > >If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that
> >> > >
> >> > >A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Hardly now...why does it follow?..don't be silly sir...
> >> >
> >> > Incidentally, although it certainly isn't any kind of proof but
> >> > our Lancs didn't have that row of small windows all down along
> >> > the stbd side of the a/c, but if you Google for the 'Manchester
> >> > Bomber' it does, exactly like these.
> >> >
> >> > Are you sure that these two guys aren't standing beside a
> >> > Manchester?. There's not enough of the a/c showing for me to
> >> > tell.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later
> >the
> >> > >same day.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > And that sounds impossible for the BBC??...as I said, don't be
> >> > silly sir...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the
> >> conspiracy.
> >> > >
> >> > >D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the
> >had
> >> a
> >> > >renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC reporter there as reported
> >here
> >> > >http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/default.htm . They got
together
> >40
> >> > >years later for the express purpose of remembering the recording and
> >> > >broadcasting of this recording. Are you REALLY suggesting that they
> >got
> >> > >together 40 years later to remember something that never happened ?
> >> > >
> >> > >Seriously you are ignoring all the above in favour of not believing
> >that
> >> the
> >> > >BBC knew how to filter noise. They were a world class broadcasting
> >> service.
> >> > >You would certainly imagine they had sound engineers that knew what
> >they
> >> > >were doing.
> >> > >
> >> > >I have the whole 40 minute recording from the IWM sound archive. I
> >payed
> >> > >£20 for it. Are you saying that I should report the Imperial War
> >Museum
> >> for
> >> > >commiting fraud in that they are knowingly selling faked recordings
?
> >Or
> >> > >perhaps a museum with a international reputation has been duped
> >> themselves
> >> > >and that you know better based on a hunch that the engines are not
loud
> >> > >enough ?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I know that this looks bad for me...but I find it very difficult
> >> > to believe that the announcer is sitting in a Lanc as he talks
> >> > about "...moving down the runway and just now we lift off and
> >> > climb away..." etc. If you ever actually sat in a Lancaster
> >> > during takeoff you'd know...the noise is deafeningly
> >> > loud...deafening...
> >> >
> >> > Literally.
> >> >
> >> > The Canadian government pays me a 35% hearing disability pension
> >> > for listening to that deafening sound (for about 575 hours)
> >> > along with the exposure that I suffered on other less loud a/c
> >> > since.
> >> >
> >> > You have to take some of the responsibility for this too Stolly,
> >> > you made the barefaced claim that it was authentic with no cite
> >> > at all. This time you supplied a cite but didn't point out any
> >> > connection to this recording in that article. I searched all
> >> > through your article and found this somewhere in there (I believe
> >> > it was in 'A brief history')
> >> >
> >> > >quote:
> >> > >The famous BBC recording of a raid on Berlin, commentary by
> >> > >Wynford Vaughan-Thomas, was made on 3rd September 1943
> >> > >with Flt Lt Ken Letford's crew in EM-F for Freddie.
> >> > >unquote
> >> >
> >> > So there you are...do I think that it's authentic?...well, I have
> >> > no doubt that it was made during the war, and probably for PR
> >> > reasons so it certainly has value (had?)...do I think that it
> >> > used the talents of the flight crew?...sure.
> >> >
> >> > Do I believe that there's some conspiricy?...nah.
> >> >
> >> > Do I think that it was RECORDED IN FLIGHT on a
> >> > LANCASTER?...sorry, I just cannot believe that.
> >> >
> >> > As talented as the BBC techs might have been, the 'white noise'
> >> > of four Merlins at full bellow is fearsome to behold yet there's
> >> > almost no evidence of it here (I can occasionally hear what might
> >> > be some faint engine sounds 'way in the background).
> >> >
> >> > The announcer sounds relatively calm and is speaking relatively
> >> > quietly, certainly not the case if he were actually shouting to
> >> > be heard above the unholy racket of 4 Merlins. It's human nature
> >> > to shout when you cannot hear...notice hearing impaired people,
> >> > they speak loudly because they can't hear themselves very well.
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > -Gord.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Stolly" > wrote in message
...
> It was recorded on a disk not tape.
>
> If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that
>
> A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked.
>
> B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later the
> same day.
>
> C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the
conspiracy.
>
> D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the had a
> renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC

I dont think there's any doubt that Wynford Vaughan Thomas and a
BBC sound engineer did indeed fly that mission on an RAF
Lancaster, nor do I doubt that they did indeed record on that mission.

However its not impossible that AFTER the mission some dubbing
occurred to increase the audibility. I know for sure that some film
sequences were renacted for much the same reason, the famous
advance of the infantry at El-Alamein was in fact recorded some
time after the event in broad daylight with suitable filters on the
camera lens. This wasnt an attempt to bamboozle anybody it
was just a reflection of the technical limitations of the time.

I dont think anyone at the time would have regarded it as a
fake any more than using digital filtering would be regarded
as fakery today.

As for the time frame lets recall that that this was a period
when the BBC rooutinely produced live radio drama and
had a building full of actors at its disposal.

Keith

[Blair Maynard]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Blair Maynard" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't believe it is a real recording of an actual mission.
> >
> > The fact that somebody actually did get into a Lancaster, and tried to
> > record what was going on, doesn't mean that what you are proffering is
the
> > actual recording. I would bet the recording didn't work at all, they got
> > back home and taped it in a studio. Maybe with the actual crew or just
> > actors. Maybe even somebody took notes and the words are true.
> >
> > Or maybe they had this tape prepared ahead of time just in case the real
> > taping didn't come out. And used that. I have no problem believing that
> this
> > recording was made during the war and released as an actual recording of
a
> > real bombing mission. People were in no position to question the
validity
> of
> > such a recording back then.
>
>
> Wire recording...possibly. Tape? Do you know something we don't?
>
> Tex
>
>

Give them some credit, the BBC was quite advanced for its day. :)

[Blair Maynard]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "tscottme" > wrote:
>
> >Gord Beaman > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Well...I hate to be a stick-in-the-mud but I just cannot see how
> >> this could be authentic. Please tell me how they managed to
> >> filter out the sound of 4 merlin engines at full power?. This guy
> >> is apparently talking all through the take-off run in a barely
> >> above conversational tone of voice. This just cannot happen, not
> >> on a Lancaster. There's so much noise on takeoff that nobody uses
> >> intercom then. The Pilots and Flight Engineer uses hand signals
> >> to indicate orders to vary power and to raise the gear etc.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I think it's faked.
> >> --
> >>
> >> -Gord.
> >
> >Not to mention the quality of the carbon microphones that must have been
> >used back then. It sounds like a professional reenactment or a training
> >tape. Not the slightest hint of engine noise and the voices sound
> >clearer and cleaner than through a modern intercom system.
> >
> >Sounds fake to me.
>
> Quite true, we did use carbon mics (at least in peacetime
> Lancasters - early fifties). They were type T-17, for pic see:
> http://members.aol.com/tcsopr/t17mic.htm
> --
>
> -Gord.

Very clever. A combination microphone showerhead.

Perfect for those flyboys who like to sing in the shower.

[[email protected]]

"M. J. Powell" > wrote:

>In message >, "Gord
writes
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I know that this looks bad for me...but I find it very difficult
>>to believe that the announcer is sitting in a Lanc as he talks
>>about "...moving down the runway and just now we lift off and
>>climb away..." etc. If you ever actually sat in a Lancaster
>>during takeoff you'd know...the noise is deafeningly
>>loud...deafening...
>
>Noise-cancelling microphone used by Vaughan-Thomas, mixed by the
>engineer with intercom? As frequently used by sports commentators.
>
>Mike

It still doesn't ring true to me Mike...Listen closely to the
announcer here while picturing him in a mind-numbing world of
harsh noise so loud that it's almost painful. He's speaking in an
almost conversational tone. I really can't see him doing that,
he'd be shouting, it's human nature to do so.

Anyway, it's possible that I'm wrong here but I don't really
think that I am.
--

-Gord.

[Dave Kearton]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "M. J. Powell" > wrote:
>
>
> It still doesn't ring true to me Mike...Listen closely to the
> announcer here while picturing him in a mind-numbing world of
> harsh noise so loud that it's almost painful. He's speaking in an
> almost conversational tone. I really can't see him doing that,
> he'd be shouting, it's human nature to do so.
>
> Anyway, it's possible that I'm wrong here but I don't really
> think that I am.
> --
>
> -Gord.

--




I have to agree with Gord. Even the most experienced war reporter in
Britain (assuming he has some convoy work or Middle East experience under
his belt) would be hyperventillating the whole time he was over enemy
territory.


That steely British resolve tends to fall away a bit when you're shot at by
night fighters. I'm sure that under the same circumstances I'd be
squealing like a choirboy - not as calm and collected as the people on the
recording




Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "M. J. Powell" > wrote:

>
> It still doesn't ring true to me Mike...Listen closely to the
> announcer here while picturing him in a mind-numbing world of
> harsh noise so loud that it's almost painful. He's speaking in an
> almost conversational tone. I really can't see him doing that,
> he'd be shouting, it's human nature to do so.
>

That's the one part I can believe. I grew listening to the
broadcasts of Wynford Vaughan Thomas and he
was one of those genial laid back types who always
seemed to be at ease whatever the circumstances.

You have to remember that his wartime career took
in several invasions including Anzio and he was awarded
the Croix de Guerre in 1945 for his work in France.

Keith

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, "Gord
writes
>"M. J. Powell" > wrote:
>
>>In message >, "Gord
writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I know that this looks bad for me...but I find it very difficult
>>>to believe that the announcer is sitting in a Lanc as he talks
>>>about "...moving down the runway and just now we lift off and
>>>climb away..." etc. If you ever actually sat in a Lancaster
>>>during takeoff you'd know...the noise is deafeningly
>>>loud...deafening...
>>
>>Noise-cancelling microphone used by Vaughan-Thomas, mixed by the
>>engineer with intercom? As frequently used by sports commentators.
>>
>>Mike
>
>It still doesn't ring true to me Mike...Listen closely to the
>announcer here while picturing him in a mind-numbing world of
>harsh noise so loud that it's almost painful. He's speaking in an
>almost conversational tone. I really can't see him doing that,
>he'd be shouting, it's human nature to do so.

Well, it may be irrelevant, but I have a tape recording that I made in a
Vulcan, from take-off to landing, with 4 Olympus jets pushing like mad,
and the intercom speech sounds very similar to the Lancaster recording.
There is very little engine noise audible.
However the O2 masks were the pressure type, which were bigger and
tighter fitting than the wartime ones.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Keith Willshaw
> writes

snip
>
>I dont think there's any doubt that Wynford Vaughan Thomas and a
>BBC sound engineer did indeed fly that mission on an RAF
>Lancaster, nor do I doubt that they did indeed record on that mission.
>
>However its not impossible that AFTER the mission some dubbing
>occurred to increase the audibility.

That sets me thinking about what audio tailoring the BBC had in those
days. Even some wireless sets had the usual top cut or bass boost
controls. I will ask on a B/C newsgroup and report back. There may be
some oldies around.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Keith Willshaw
> writes
>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "M. J. Powell" > wrote:
>
>>
>> It still doesn't ring true to me Mike...Listen closely to the
>> announcer here while picturing him in a mind-numbing world of
>> harsh noise so loud that it's almost painful. He's speaking in an
>> almost conversational tone. I really can't see him doing that,
>> he'd be shouting, it's human nature to do so.
>>
>
>That's the one part I can believe. I grew listening to the
>broadcasts of Wynford Vaughan Thomas and he
>was one of those genial laid back types who always
>seemed to be at ease whatever the circumstances.
>
>You have to remember that his wartime career took
>in several invasions including Anzio and he was awarded
>the Croix de Guerre in 1945 for his work in France.

And Chester Wilmott and others recorded on disc during artillery
bombardments perfectly audibly.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Dave Holford]

I have been following this discussion with some interest and I also feel
that the recording is unlikely to be genuine. Not only is the lack of
noise a problem; I also have some difficulty in believing that the disc
cutting machinery at that time was capable of being sufficiently
isolated from the considerable vibration and G-forces due to combat
maneouvring.

Doctored, or even completely phony information for propaganda purposes
(and let's face it this was pure propaganda) were, and still are,
common. I used to have a recording of famous wartime speeches by
Churchill and other WWII leaders and on the notes was the comment that
some of the cuts were re-recordings due to the poor quality, or total
lack, of original recordings. Unfortunately I transferred this to tape
many years ago and no longer have the liner notes with the details, but
I am quite certain that at least one of them was a well known speech by
Churchill which was re-recorded in a BBC studio.

I'm tempted to consign this to the collection of "official" items
containing such things as "Cats Eyes Cunningham" and his carrots, which
was widely believed at the time; and probably still is by some.

It would seem likely that at least one person involved in this recording
is still alive and could provide the truth - unless it is covered by the
Official Secrets Act, as much WWII detail apparently still is.

Dave

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
> "Stolly" > wrote:
>
>>It was recorded on a disk not tape.
>>
>>If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that
>>
>>A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked.
>>
>
> Hardly now...why does it follow?..don't be silly sir...
>
> Incidentally, although it certainly isn't any kind of proof but
> our Lancs didn't have that row of small windows all down along
> the stbd side of the a/c, but if you Google for the 'Manchester
> Bomber' it does, exactly like these.
>
> Are you sure that these two guys aren't standing beside a
> Manchester?. There's not enough of the a/c showing for me to
> tell.

I was able to make out the serial on the aft fuselage. It's
definitely a Lanc. (Although if it _were_ a Manchester, that would
explain the lack of engine noise. :)

I have to agree with you, Gord. While I don't have any flights in a
Lancaster, I've seen and heard one, and I've flown/ridden in teh C-47,
C-123, C-131 (Recip Cosmo), and C-118 (DC-6), and the one common
denominator is the constant noise and vibration. Even when the noise
is cut back by the headsets, the vibration's always there. I can't
see any sort of the disk-cutters they used back then being isolated
from that. While the Germans had made an early form of tape recorder,
it wasn't a practical or portable system, using what were essentially
bandsaw blades moved at high speed as the recording medium.

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

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Stolly <stolly@ihatespa
m.stolly.org.uk> writes
>It was recorded on a disk not tape.
>
>If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that
>
>A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked.
>
>B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later the
>same day.
>
>C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the conspiracy.
>
>D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the had a
>renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC reporter there as reported here
>http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/default.htm . They got together 40
>years later for the express purpose of remembering the recording and
>broadcasting of this recording. Are you REALLY suggesting that they got
>together 40 years later to remember something that never happened ?
>
>Seriously you are ignoring all the above in favour of not believing that the
>BBC knew how to filter noise. They were a world class broadcasting service.
>You would certainly imagine they had sound engineers that knew what they
>were doing.
>
>I have the whole 40 minute recording from the IWM sound archive. I payed
>£20 for it. Are you saying that I should report the Imperial War Museum for
>commiting fraud in that they are knowingly selling faked recordings ? Or
>perhaps a museum with a international reputation has been duped themselves
>and that you know better based on a hunch that the engines are not loud
>enough ?
>
SNIP of MJP points


Out of respect for your 20.00 worth of drinking vouchers, I will take a
look at all the recordings on your site, but as I mentioned in an
earlier part of this thread, the beef with the sound quality is only
part of it, the actual words recorded don't add up to a real-time
recording of a Lanc aircrew on a bomb run.

1. 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? Usually such a command was only given by a
gunner who had definitely seen a fighter - not the case at that time.
Then the pilot is told to steer 'left, left' - such a precise order
would not be given by the bomb aimer until the pilot had been told to
stop any weaving.

2. 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.

3. 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, and before the night fighter is sighted.

4. And did they really put a mike in the rear turret to record the
sound of the Brownings?

The bombing sequence has the feel of jargon being bunged in by a script
writer who did not know the true sequence of events before and after a
bomb release.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[MichaelJP]

"Dave Holford" > wrote in message
...
> I have been following this discussion with some interest and I also feel
> that the recording is unlikely to be genuine. Not only is the lack of
> noise a problem; I also have some difficulty in believing that the disc
> cutting machinery at that time was capable of being sufficiently
> isolated from the considerable vibration and G-forces due to combat
> maneouvring.
>
> Doctored, or even completely phony information for propaganda purposes
> (and let's face it this was pure propaganda) were, and still are,
> common. I used to have a recording of famous wartime speeches by
> Churchill and other WWII leaders and on the notes was the comment that
> some of the cuts were re-recordings due to the poor quality, or total
> lack, of original recordings. Unfortunately I transferred this to tape
> many years ago and no longer have the liner notes with the details, but
> I am quite certain that at least one of them was a well known speech by
> Churchill which was re-recorded in a BBC studio.
>
> I'm tempted to consign this to the collection of "official" items
> containing such things as "Cats Eyes Cunningham" and his carrots, which
> was widely believed at the time; and probably still is by some.
>
> It would seem likely that at least one person involved in this recording
> is still alive and could provide the truth - unless it is covered by the
> Official Secrets Act, as much WWII detail apparently still is.
>
> Dave

I have to agree - only with modern DSP "anti-noise" technology could you
have filtered out all the engine noise.

Maybe a recording was attempted, found to be unuseable, and the resulting
script was then re-recorded in the studio. I don't think this was an attempt
to deceive though, just common practice at the time, as per Churchill's
speeches.

- Michael

[[email protected]]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

>I was able to make out the serial on the aft fuselage. It's
>definitely a Lanc. (Although if it _were_ a Manchester, that would
>explain the lack of engine noise. :)

Sure...two engines vice four...
>
>I have to agree with you, Gord. While I don't have any flights in a
>Lancaster, I've seen and heard one, and I've flown/ridden in teh C-47,
>C-123, C-131 (Recip Cosmo), and C-118 (DC-6), and the one common
>denominator is the constant noise and vibration. Even when the noise
>is cut back by the headsets, the vibration's always there. I can't
>see any sort of the disk-cutters they used back then being isolated
>from that. While the Germans had made an early form of tape recorder,
>it wasn't a practical or portable system, using what were essentially
>bandsaw blades moved at high speed as the recording medium.

Quite true, and here's another possibility(?) for a recording
medium...The Lancs that we had in the early/mid fifties were
equipped with a 'magnetic wire recorder'. They were used to
record the sonobuoys audio output of underwater sounds. Do you
suppose they may have had those during the war years?...Ours was
a cute lil guy about 1,5 feet long, 8 inches high by 4 inches
wide. You could see the two wire spools through the glass in the
front loading door, The wire looked very thin and looked like
shiny steel. (be aware that the memory of those measurements etc
is some 50 years old!)
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"MichaelJP" > wrote:

>
>Maybe a recording was attempted, found to be unuseable, and the resulting
>script was then re-recorded in the studio. I don't think this was an attempt
>to deceive though, just common practice at the time, as per Churchill's
>speeches.
>
>- Michael
>
Certainly sounds plausable...

(sorry, couldn't resist)

:)

--

-Gord.

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, "Gord
writes
(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
>>I was able to make out the serial on the aft fuselage. It's
>>definitely a Lanc. (Although if it _were_ a Manchester, that would
>>explain the lack of engine noise. :)
>
>Sure...two engines vice four...
>>
>>I have to agree with you, Gord. While I don't have any flights in a
>>Lancaster, I've seen and heard one, and I've flown/ridden in teh C-47,
>>C-123, C-131 (Recip Cosmo), and C-118 (DC-6), and the one common
>>denominator is the constant noise and vibration. Even when the noise
>>is cut back by the headsets, the vibration's always there. I can't
>>see any sort of the disk-cutters they used back then being isolated
>>from that. While the Germans had made an early form of tape recorder,
>>it wasn't a practical or portable system, using what were essentially
>>bandsaw blades moved at high speed as the recording medium.
>
>Quite true, and here's another possibility(?) for a recording
>medium...The Lancs that we had in the early/mid fifties were
>equipped with a 'magnetic wire recorder'. They were used to
>record the sonobuoys audio output of underwater sounds. Do you
>suppose they may have had those during the war years?...Ours was
>a cute lil guy about 1,5 feet long, 8 inches high by 4 inches
>wide. You could see the two wire spools through the glass in the
>front loading door, The wire looked very thin and looked like
>shiny steel. (be aware that the memory of those measurements etc
>is some 50 years old!)

Wirex?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, MichaelJP
> writes

snip

>
>I have to agree - only with modern DSP "anti-noise" technology could you
>have filtered out all the engine noise.
>
>Maybe a recording was attempted, found to be unuseable, and the resulting
>script was then re-recorded in the studio. I don't think this was an attempt
>to deceive though, just common practice at the time, as per Churchill's
>speeches.

I put these points to a B/C ng group and several interesting points
emerged:

One poster said.

Quote:

Lip ribbon mics were first developed in 1937, so presumably they would
have been available for this application in the war. Not only is the
ribbon just 6cm or so from the speaker's mouth, but they have
considerable LF cutoff to counter the proximity effect. This would have
greatly reduced the very deep engine noise of a Lanc.

AIUI, aircraft comms of the day used carbon mic inserts.

The reported uselessness of the intercom does not necessarily mean that
the intercom's mics were overwhelmed with engine noise. It might have
been that the overwhelming occurred between the earphones and the ear.
This seems plausible, because the SPL of speech is much higher in front
of the speaker's mouth than adjacent to the listener's ear.

A day or two ago there was something on the telly - I can't for the life
of me remember what - in which the presenter was doing a piece to camera
in a light aircraft using a lip ribbon mic. There was very little
background noise audible.

I once did a radio interview with someone while standing next to the
main engines in a cross-channel ferry. (They have cylinders the size of
dustbins.) We were both wearing ear defenders, and had to lip read to
communicate with each other, but the speech on the recording - made
using an omni mic very close up - was perfectly intelligible. The
background noise on the tape was considerable, but the engines were
bigger and closer than those on a Lancaster bomber, and we didn't use a
lip ribbon mic.

It's also interesting to note that in the recording which contains
machine gun fire, as the Lanc shoots down a German fighter, that gunfire
is much louder than the engine noise.

On this basis, I think the Wynford V-T recording could perfectly well be
genuine.

Endquote.

He raises several very good points here, I believe.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Dave Eadsforth
> writes
>In article >, Stolly <stolly@ihatespa
>m.stolly.org.uk> writes
>>It was recorded on a disk not tape.
>>
>>If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that
>>
>>A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked.
>>
>>B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later the
>>same day.
>>
>>C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the conspiracy.
>>
>>D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the had a
>>renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC reporter there as reported here
>>http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/default.htm . They got together 40
>>years later for the express purpose of remembering the recording and
>>broadcasting of this recording. Are you REALLY suggesting that they got
>>together 40 years later to remember something that never happened ?
>>
>>Seriously you are ignoring all the above in favour of not believing that the
>>BBC knew how to filter noise. They were a world class broadcasting service.
>>You would certainly imagine they had sound engineers that knew what they
>>were doing.
>>
>>I have the whole 40 minute recording from the IWM sound archive. I payed
>>£20 for it. Are you saying that I should report the Imperial War Museum for
>>commiting fraud in that they are knowingly selling faked recordings ? Or
>>perhaps a museum with a international reputation has been duped themselves
>>and that you know better based on a hunch that the engines are not loud
>>enough ?
>>
>SNIP of MJP points
>
>
>Out of respect for your 20.00 worth of drinking vouchers, I will take a
>look at all the recordings on your site, but as I mentioned in an
>earlier part of this thread, the beef with the sound quality is only
>part of it, the actual words recorded don't add up to a real-time
>recording of a Lanc aircrew on a bomb run.
>
>1. 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? Usually such a command was only given by a
>gunner who had definitely seen a fighter - not the case at that time.
>Then the pilot is told to steer 'left, left' - such a precise order
>would not be given by the bomb aimer until the pilot had been told to
>stop any weaving.
>
>2. 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.
>
>3. 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, and before the night fighter is sighted.
>
>4. And did they really put a mike in the rear turret to record the
>sound of the Brownings?
>
>The bombing sequence has the feel of jargon being bunged in by a script
>writer who did not know the true sequence of events before and after a
>bomb release.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave
>

Bother - that draft left my out-tray before I'd finished with it...

Revision to point 2. 'more revs' is a bit imprecise for a pilot -
'increase revs to so many RPM' (even if valid at that point in the bomb
run) would surely have been a bit more likely?

Revision to point 3 due to my mis-remembering: - after the rear gunner
disposed of the attacker the pilot was instructed to keep weaving just
prior to the bombing photograph being taken. Odd advice.

The other recordings do sound much more plausible, although I was quite
surprised to hear the 'bombardier' (not 'air bomber' or 'bomb aimer' - I
know that's been mentioned before - was this recording made with a view
to airing it in the USA?) fusing his bomb load as they crossed the coast
- always thought that fusing was done after they were committed to the
run in - after all, they might have had to abort and jettison, and a
hang up was always on the cards - who would want to land with a fused
hung bomb?

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[MichaelJP]

"Dave Eadsforth" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Dave Eadsforth
> > writes
> >In article >, Stolly <stolly@ihatespa
> >m.stolly.org.uk> writes
> >>It was recorded on a disk not tape.
> >>
> >>If you are convinced it is not real then you are also convinced that
> >>
> >>A. The picture of them stood outside the aircraft is faked.
> >>
> >>B. They faked it in less than 12 hours since it was broadcast later the
> >>same day.
> >>
> >>C The BBC and Imperial War Museum, to this day, are in on the
conspiracy.
> >>
> >>D. 207 Squadron Association are also in on the conspiracy since the had
a
> >>renunion in 1983 and invited the BBC reporter there as reported
here
> >>http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/default.htm . They got together 40
> >>years later for the express purpose of remembering the recording and
> >>broadcasting of this recording. Are you REALLY suggesting that they got
> >>together 40 years later to remember something that never happened ?
> >>
> >>Seriously you are ignoring all the above in favour of not believing that
the
> >>BBC knew how to filter noise. They were a world class broadcasting
service.
> >>You would certainly imagine they had sound engineers that knew what they
> >>were doing.
> >>
> >>I have the whole 40 minute recording from the IWM sound archive. I
payed
> >>£20 for it. Are you saying that I should report the Imperial War Museum
for
> >>commiting fraud in that they are knowingly selling faked recordings ?
Or
> >>perhaps a museum with a international reputation has been duped
themselves
> >>and that you know better based on a hunch that the engines are not loud
> >>enough ?
> >>
> >SNIP of MJP points
> >
> >
> >Out of respect for your 20.00 worth of drinking vouchers, I will take a
> >look at all the recordings on your site, but as I mentioned in an
> >earlier part of this thread, the beef with the sound quality is only
> >part of it, the actual words recorded don't add up to a real-time
> >recording of a Lanc aircrew on a bomb run.
> >
> >1. 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? Usually such a command was only given by a
> >gunner who had definitely seen a fighter - not the case at that time.
> >Then the pilot is told to steer 'left, left' - such a precise order
> >would not be given by the bomb aimer until the pilot had been told to
> >stop any weaving.
> >
> >2. 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.
> >
> >3. 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, and before the night fighter is sighted.
> >
> >4. And did they really put a mike in the rear turret to record the
> >sound of the Brownings?
> >
> >The bombing sequence has the feel of jargon being bunged in by a script
> >writer who did not know the true sequence of events before and after a
> >bomb release.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Dave
> >
>
> Bother - that draft left my out-tray before I'd finished with it...
>
> Revision to point 2. 'more revs' is a bit imprecise for a pilot -
> 'increase revs to so many RPM' (even if valid at that point in the bomb
> run) would surely have been a bit more likely?
>
> Revision to point 3 due to my mis-remembering: - after the rear gunner
> disposed of the attacker the pilot was instructed to keep weaving just
> prior to the bombing photograph being taken. Odd advice.
>
> The other recordings do sound much more plausible, although I was quite
> surprised to hear the 'bombardier' (not 'air bomber' or 'bomb aimer' - I
> know that's been mentioned before - was this recording made with a view
> to airing it in the USA?) fusing his bomb load as they crossed the coast
> - always thought that fusing was done after they were committed to the
> run in - after all, they might have had to abort and jettison, and a
> hang up was always on the cards - who would want to land with a fused
> hung bomb?

Interesting points. Also, I don't want to cast any aspersions, but would a
bomber crew on a mission have sounded quite so calm and matter of fact
during the mission? Surely there would have been *some* stress apparent in
the voices, and nothing like that comes across on the recording for any of
the crew.

- Michael

[[email protected]]

Dave Eadsforth > wrote:

> fusing his bomb load as they crossed the coast
>- always thought that fusing was done after they were committed to the
>run in - after all, they might have had to abort and jettison, and a
>hang up was always on the cards - who would want to land with a fused
>hung bomb?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave

Pretty good points all Dave...this one isn't (unless they used a
different system during the war) which certainly is possible.

The bomb shackles that we used on the Lanc in the fifties used a
comparatively simple electrical solenoid to hold the 'arming
wire' anchored to the shackle unless it was desired to drop them
'safe' at which time the solenoid was powered, withdrawing a pin
from the loop in the wire and allowing the wire to pull out of
the shackle and fall 'with' the bomb.

This wire (when anchored during the drop) pulls a safety pin out
of the little 'arming propeller/fan' on the bomb's nose allowing
it to spin and arm the bomb as it falls. So basically, you can
arm them or disarm them at will.

Also, a 'Coast Crossing Check Outbound' (and another inbound) was
quite common (in ASW at least). Just to ensure nothing could
accidentally drop from the a/c over land.
--

-Gord.

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Gord Beaman
<?@?.?> writes
>Dave Eadsforth > wrote:
>
>> fusing his bomb load as they crossed the coast
>>- always thought that fusing was done after they were committed to the
>>run in - after all, they might have had to abort and jettison, and a
>>hang up was always on the cards - who would want to land with a fused
>>hung bomb?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Dave
>
>Pretty good points all Dave...this one isn't (unless they used a
>different system during the war) which certainly is possible.
>
>The bomb shackles that we used on the Lanc in the fifties used a
>comparatively simple electrical solenoid to hold the 'arming
>wire' anchored to the shackle unless it was desired to drop them
>'safe' at which time the solenoid was powered, withdrawing a pin
>from the loop in the wire and allowing the wire to pull out of
>the shackle and fall 'with' the bomb.
>
>This wire (when anchored during the drop) pulls a safety pin out
>of the little 'arming propeller/fan' on the bomb's nose allowing
>it to spin and arm the bomb as it falls. So basically, you can
>arm them or disarm them at will.
>
>Also, a 'Coast Crossing Check Outbound' (and another inbound) was
>quite common (in ASW at least). Just to ensure nothing could
>accidentally drop from the a/c over land.
>--
>
>-Gord.

Hi Gord,

Thanks for all that - you have just completed my education as to how the
bomb carrier worked. I knew that there was an arming unit on the front
of the bomb carrier, but in my ignorance I thought it was a one time,
one-way operation.

Re. the arming solenoid, just so I have that correct, would I be right
to assume that the arming unit had a default of allowing the bombs to
drop safe, i.e. the arming wire was free to drop with the bomb unless
the solenoid was energised by the arming switch to trap the wire to the
carrier as you described?

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[[email protected]]

Dave Eadsforth > wrote:

>Hi Gord,
>
>Thanks for all that - you have just completed my education as to how the
>bomb carrier worked. I knew that there was an arming unit on the front
>of the bomb carrier, but in my ignorance I thought it was a one time,
>one-way operation.
>
>Re. the arming solenoid, just so I have that correct, would I be right
>to assume that the arming unit had a default of allowing the bombs to
>drop safe, i.e. the arming wire was free to drop with the bomb unless
>the solenoid was energised by the arming switch to trap the wire to the
>carrier as you described?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave

No, it's just the opposite Dave, you need power to enable a
'safe' drop (of course, thinking about it, you need power for
'any' drop don't you). Perhaps they figured it'd be better to
have it 'fail safe' to 'armed' just in case there was a fault in
the arming circuit which would preclude an armed drop,

In other words maybe they thought this 'safe drop' wasn't a real
important feature and didn't want to endanger the mission for
it's slight added advantage, If you had to jettison them because
of an impending forced landing then you could jettison live over
the ocean or the countryside.

Perhaps Art could give us some pointers?.
--

-Gord.

[Pete]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote
>
> No, it's just the opposite Dave, you need power to enable a
> 'safe' drop (of course, thinking about it, you need power for
> 'any' drop don't you). Perhaps they figured it'd be better to
> have it 'fail safe' to 'armed' just in case there was a fault in
> the arming circuit which would preclude an armed drop,

On current aircraft, the fail mode is safe. The arming solenoids need power
to energize and retain the clip and wire.

The ejector carts run on different, multiple circuits.

Pete

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Gord Beaman
<?@?.?> writes
>Dave Eadsforth > wrote:
>
>>Hi Gord,
>>
>>Thanks for all that - you have just completed my education as to how the
>>bomb carrier worked. I knew that there was an arming unit on the front
>>of the bomb carrier, but in my ignorance I thought it was a one time,
>>one-way operation.
>>
>>Re. the arming solenoid, just so I have that correct, would I be right
>>to assume that the arming unit had a default of allowing the bombs to
>>drop safe, i.e. the arming wire was free to drop with the bomb unless
>>the solenoid was energised by the arming switch to trap the wire to the
>>carrier as you described?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Dave
>
>No, it's just the opposite Dave, you need power to enable a
>'safe' drop (of course, thinking about it, you need power for
>'any' drop don't you). Perhaps they figured it'd be better to
>have it 'fail safe' to 'armed' just in case there was a fault in
>the arming circuit which would preclude an armed drop,
>
There's logic to that, even if it is a bit counter instinctive to the
modern way of thinking.

>In other words maybe they thought this 'safe drop' wasn't a real
>important feature and didn't want to endanger the mission for
>it's slight added advantage, If you had to jettison them because
>of an impending forced landing then you could jettison live over
>the ocean or the countryside.
>
I just loved that old story about the RAF bomber that returned to base
after a leaflet raid in 1940. They reported to the IO that they had
been attacked by a fighter and had had to jettison the bales intact
rather than first cutting the wrapping wires.

'Good God,' said the IO, 'you could have killed someone!'

>Perhaps Art could give us some pointers?.
>--
>
>-Gord.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[[email protected]]

"Pete" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote
>>
>> No, it's just the opposite Dave, you need power to enable a
>> 'safe' drop (of course, thinking about it, you need power for
>> 'any' drop don't you). Perhaps they figured it'd be better to
>> have it 'fail safe' to 'armed' just in case there was a fault in
>> the arming circuit which would preclude an armed drop,
>
>On current aircraft, the fail mode is safe. The arming solenoids need power
>to energize and retain the clip and wire.
>
>The ejector carts run on different, multiple circuits.
>
>Pete
>
Thanks Pete, I didn't know that, I wonder what the rationale
would be for the change?... Could it be that during WW2 they
considered it more important to avoid a failed bomb run than they
do now?. Interesting indeed.
--

-Gord.

[Pete]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote
> >
> >On current aircraft, the fail mode is safe. The arming solenoids need
power
> >to energize and retain the clip and wire.
> >
> >The ejector carts run on different, multiple circuits.
> >
> >Pete
> >
> Thanks Pete, I didn't know that, I wonder what the rationale
> would be for the change?... Could it be that during WW2 they
> considered it more important to avoid a failed bomb run than they
> do now?. Interesting indeed.
> --

That's probably the case. Peacetime vs WWII mindset. Better design and
greater reliability reduces the chance of the mechanism failing, so we can
default to the 'safe' mode, and arm only on request.

Consider a training mission, with live ordnance. Aircraft has a problem, and
the pilot has to jettison the munitions. Do we jettison safe or armed? Since
we are always over friendly territory, defaulting to safe mode would be
preferable.

Pete

[[email protected]]

"Pete" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote
>> >
>> >On current aircraft, the fail mode is safe. The arming solenoids need
>power
>> >to energize and retain the clip and wire.
>> >
>> >The ejector carts run on different, multiple circuits.
>> >
>> >Pete
>> >
>> Thanks Pete, I didn't know that, I wonder what the rationale
>> would be for the change?... Could it be that during WW2 they
>> considered it more important to avoid a failed bomb run than they
>> do now?. Interesting indeed.
>> --
>
>That's probably the case. Peacetime vs WWII mindset. Better design and
>greater reliability reduces the chance of the mechanism failing, so we can
>default to the 'safe' mode, and arm only on request.
>
>Consider a training mission, with live ordnance. Aircraft has a problem, and
>the pilot has to jettison the munitions. Do we jettison safe or armed? Since
>we are always over friendly territory, defaulting to safe mode would be
>preferable.
>
>Pete
>
Certainly sounds plausable...
--

-Gord.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
>>I was able to make out the serial on the aft fuselage. It's
>>definitely a Lanc. (Although if it _were_ a Manchester, that would
>>explain the lack of engine noise. :)
>
> Sure...two engines vice four...
>>
>>I have to agree with you, Gord. While I don't have any flights in a
>>Lancaster, I've seen and heard one, and I've flown/ridden in teh C-47,
>>C-123, C-131 (Recip Cosmo), and C-118 (DC-6), and the one common
>>denominator is the constant noise and vibration. Even when the noise
>>is cut back by the headsets, the vibration's always there. I can't
>>see any sort of the disk-cutters they used back then being isolated
>>from that. While the Germans had made an early form of tape recorder,
>>it wasn't a practical or portable system, using what were essentially
>>bandsaw blades moved at high speed as the recording medium.
>
> Quite true, and here's another possibility(?) for a recording
> medium...The Lancs that we had in the early/mid fifties were
> equipped with a 'magnetic wire recorder'. They were used to
> record the sonobuoys audio output of underwater sounds. Do you
> suppose they may have had those during the war years?...Ours was
> a cute lil guy about 1,5 feet long, 8 inches high by 4 inches
> wide. You could see the two wire spools through the glass in the
> front loading door, The wire looked very thin and looked like
> shiny steel. (be aware that the memory of those measurements etc
> is some 50 years old!)

Sorry for taking so long, but...
I did some checking, and I'd be very surprised if any airborne audio
recordings from that era were made on Wire Recorders. While the basic
idea of Wire Recorders had been around since the 1920s, the recorders
were refrigerator-sized monstrosities that had really lousy frequency
bandwidth, and horrible signal/noise ratios. Some were built and sold
as telephone messaging systems, and some were used for dictation.
None were remotely portable. In mid 1943, advances in low-noise
amplifiers, and miniaturized vacuum tubes (valves) allowed Marvin
Camras, of the Armour Research Foundation to build a portable,
reliable wire recorder. The U.S. Navy ordered 1,000 ARF Wire
Recorders, to be lisence-built by G.E.
http://www.videointerchange.com/wire_recorder1.htm
is a good place to start. It seems that wire recorders had one
advantage over tapes - splicing was done with a square knot.

These military recorders were used as audio and analog data recirders
in large ASW and ELINT (Ferret) aircraft, and are, no doubt, the
direct ancestor of teh unit in your P2V. I'm willing to bet Local
Currency vs. Local Breakfast Pastry that there wasn't one used in a
Bomber Command Lancaster to record a Night Raid for the BBC.

As to the comment from another post in this thread, yes, lip mikes
existed, but that theory falls down on two points. If I'm remembering
things correctly, you can't just plug one into a system intended for
Carbon mikes - As I Seem To Recall, there are impedance matching
issues that require some manner of additional circuitry. It wouldn't
have been impossible, but I can't imagine the RAF restringing the
interphone system on a single Lancaster just to accomodate the
Propaganda Campaign. The other factor is that lip mikes and Oxygen
Masks don't mix. Bomber Command Lancs spent their missions at night
up past 18,000', and supplemental Oxygen is necessary t those heights,
and very useful at much lower altitudes. (The extra O2 increases night
vision). There should be 8 or 9 guys on that airplane, all waring
Oxygen masks, and all, at som epoint, talking on the intercom, with
the mask microphones. We ought to hear _somebody_ breathing,
dagnabbit!

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

[[email protected]]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

>http://www.videointerchange.com/wire_recorder1.htm
>is a good place to start.

....and end too I'd say...everything that you ever wanted to know
about wire recoeders!...great source of clues indeed.

> It seems that wire recorders had one
>advantage over tapes - splicing was done with a square knot.
>
>These military recorders were used as audio and analog data recirders
>in large ASW and ELINT (Ferret) aircraft, and are, no doubt, the
>direct ancestor of teh unit in your P2V.

Actually, it was in our Lancs that I saw them, mind you, this was
in the early fifties...

> I'm willing to bet Local
>Currency vs. Local Breakfast Pastry that there wasn't one used in a
>Bomber Command Lancaster to record a Night Raid for the BBC.
>
I tend to agree...your article seems to affirm that.

>As to the comment from another post in this thread, yes, lip mikes
>existed, but that theory falls down on two points. If I'm remembering
>things correctly, you can't just plug one into a system intended for
>Carbon mikes - As I Seem To Recall, there are impedance matching
>issues that require some manner of additional circuitry.

Quite true Peter, most modern intercom systems use dynamic
mics...better fidelity...less noise.


> It wouldn't
>have been impossible, but I can't imagine the RAF restringing the
>interphone system on a single Lancaster just to accomodate the
>Propaganda Campaign. The other factor is that lip mikes and Oxygen
>Masks don't mix. Bomber Command Lancs spent their missions at night
>up past 18,000', and supplemental Oxygen is necessary t those heights,
>and very useful at much lower altitudes. (The extra O2 increases night
>vision). There should be 8 or 9 guys on that airplane, all waring
>Oxygen masks, and all, at som epoint, talking on the intercom, with
>the mask microphones. We ought to hear _somebody_ breathing,
>dagnabbit!

And more than that oxygen masks mics sound very hollow and
muffled, They're much harder to understand than either carbon or
dynamic mics...no way these guys were wearing oxygen masks.

Mind you, they could have been bombing from lower level, but the
whole scenario just doesn't jell with me. I just cannot listen to
the audio and imagine that it's coming from a Lanc crew on a
bombing run...even factoring in the near 50 year time lapse it
still doesn't impress me as being plausible.

My memory of those years is crystal clear...
--

-Gord.

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Peter Stickney
> writes

snip

>As to the comment from another post in this thread, yes, lip mikes
>existed, but that theory falls down on two points. If I'm remembering
>things correctly, you can't just plug one into a system intended for
>Carbon mikes - As I Seem To Recall, there are impedance matching
>issues that require some manner of additional circuitry. It wouldn't
>have been impossible, but I can't imagine the RAF restringing the
>interphone system on a single Lancaster just to accomodate the
>Propaganda Campaign.

The lip mic would have fed the small mixer unit at the recorder. The a/c
intercom would be another input, suitably padded down.

> The other factor is that lip mikes and Oxygen
>Masks don't mix.

Yes, I imagined WVT using an oxygen mask until he wanted to speak then
unclipping, saying his stuff, then clipping back up.
d
> Bomber Command Lancs spent their missions at night
>up past 18,000', and supplemental Oxygen is necessary t those heights,
>and very useful at much lower altitudes. (The extra O2 increases night
>vision). There should be 8 or 9 guys on that airplane, all waring
>Oxygen masks, and all, at som epoint, talking on the intercom, with
>the mask microphones. We ought to hear _somebody_ breathing,
>dagnabbit!

Was it common practice to stay switched off until you wanted to say
something?

In my recording, there is no breathing audible. Everyone was 'off' until
speaking.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[[email protected]]

"M. J. Powell" > wrote:

>
>Was it common practice to stay switched off until you wanted to say
>something?
>
>In my recording, there is no breathing audible. Everyone was 'off' until
>speaking.
>
>Mike

Yes Mike, that's the drill, although for take-off and landing on
some aircraft the pilots and engineers are supposed to go to 'hot
mics'. I never liked hot mics much, lets too much noise into the
intercom. The left seat on The Argus was always on for landing
though and it was easy to see how hard he was working by the
sound of his breathing...kind of funny at times, nobody seems to
know how he sounds himself. That's another reason that the audio
sounded unreal, no mic clicks and 'hiss' indicating an open mic.
--

-Gord.

[ffsear]

1. 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? Usually such a command was only given by a
gunner who had definitely seen a fighter - not the case at that time.
Then the pilot is told to steer 'left, left' - such a precise order
would not be given by the bomb aimer until the pilot had been told to
stop any weaving.

2. 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.

3. 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, and before the night fighter is sighted.

4. And did they really put a mike in the rear turret to record the
sound of the Brownings?

The bombing sequence has the feel of jargon being bunged in by a script
writer who did not know the true sequence of events before and after a
bomb release.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

1. We know the mission was Berlin. It would have been an area bombing mission (the use of a cookie and incendiaries confirm this.) As the target itself would have been rather large, weaving to avoid/confuse flak gunners would not have been unusual nor caused the bombardier any problems. The instruction is actually coming from the bombardier anyway.

Rear gunners don't give the instruction to weave, they give the instruction to corkscrew.

2. As above, its an area bombing mission. No issues called by more revs. Pilot will be thinking about climbing away once the photorun has finished.

3. As long as they stay on course, weaving is not a problem.

4. The mid upper gunner got the kill, but even The sound is recorded from the crew's microphones, which picksup engine noise and the brownings. But most of all the picks up the voice of whoever is speaking into them, otherwise, what good do they serve? Recording or no recording.