Audio of Lancaster Under nightfighter attack

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

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

"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

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

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

"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

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

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

Originally Posted by Dave Eadsforth

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.

"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