One-eyed Vulcan Bomber crews
John Bennett
yesterday, basically appealing for funds to keep the last Vulcan flying.
Based on the presumably accurate premise that a "Real" nuclear bombing
mission deep into Russia would always be a "one-way trip" (as the Vulcan
doesn't have the range to return to the UK) the article went on to
describe how, during and after bombing, all the crew had to wear a
special protective patch on one eye. It went on to explain that they
would all be blinded due to the flash of the explosion, but be able to
make use of the one "good" eye (under the patch) they had left to
attempt a landing in a "friendly" (Middle East?) country if possible
before they ran out of fuel!
Surely they would have been able to make a good distance away before the
bomb detonated, the cockpit windows could be blanked out and/or they
could simply close and protect their eyes in other ways at the time of
the flash? It seemed to me this was perhaps the stuff of urban
mythology or just poor, un-researched journalism. Maybe the eye patch
story was a "belt and braces" safety feature, a "just in case", but
surely the crews would not all, as reported, be inevitably blinded
during a bombing mission?
Cheers John
--
John Bennett
Somerset UK
ejb
"John Bennett" <johna....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:Q++Y7iE7...@virgin.net...
> Apologies if a bit O/T but there was an article in the Mail on Sunday
> yesterday, basically appealing for funds to keep the last Vulcan flying.
>
> bomb detonated, the cockpit windows could be blanked out and/or they
> could simply close and protect their eyes in other ways at the time of
> --
> John Bennett
> Somerset UK
I think the idea was to protect them from the flash of other detonations.
ejb
FredG
...hence the blinds in stalled in B52's.
david wakefield
else?) about the last Vulcans flying with the RAF just prior to their
decomissioning in the 90's, and one of the pilots pointed out the lead-lined
blinds in the cockpit.
Also, re. the "one-way fuel range", wouldn't Nato have refuelling planes up
& flying, or at least dispersed in "safe" locations (well, something had to
keep Air Force One flying above the mayhem...)
Yours, ever so slightly off topic, ;-)
David.
John Bennett wrote in message ...
Steve
expected to pull down on the basis that there was nothing to see out there
anyway (if the electonic warfare chap in the back hadn't jammed the Mig
before the pilots could see it it would be too late!).
2. I believe the basic idea pre Blue Steel was to be able to reach Moscow
and get back. The was pre-lo level. I doubt if you could tell the crews that
they were training for a one-way trip.
3. Once the bomb was released the escape manoevre put the aircraft into a
tight turn to face in the opposite direction. This would lessen blast
effects and also point away from the flash.
4. incidentally, the "flash" is a misnomer - it would have gone on for many
seconds.
5. I think you'd be very unlucky if you were caught by someone else's flash.
I think that in the late 50s we were looking at something like a 50 target
mission over Russia so they should be spread out and our gallant lads would
be going in ahead of the SAC crews so they wouldn't get in the way. In fact
SAC would have arrived several hours after the V-force so as usual the Yanks
would arrive late after we'd done all the hard work (In case there are any
Americans reading this I don't mean it and would you like your depleted
uranium back?)
Steve
"John Bennett" <johna....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:Q++Y7iE7...@virgin.net...
Jim Aitken
the crew would put over windows before the attack, similar to the
curtains fitted to B-52s and never used on exercise to keep a lookout
for civilian traffic. Latterly, B-52 curtains have a small window made
of PZLT (apologies, I can't remember what this stands for, but the 'L'
stands for 'lead') which is transparent until it detects a flash and
then it darkens very quickly - B-1 crews have helmet visors made out of
the same material.
I *suppose* wearing an eye patch may help in case of an unexpected
detonation but I would have thought attempting to land a V-bomber with
only one good eye would be hairy to say the least.
Cheers,
Jim
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Vernon
"Jim Aitken" <jai...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94jh3c$c2t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
autoland..........
Andrew P Smith
<big_...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Not at all, IIRC they were fitted with the 10A autopilot, complete with
>autoland..........
You assume that the landing runway has the military version of ILS. If
it doesn't then autoland is useless as there is no information coming
from the ground.....
Same problem today with civil airliners - the 777 may have all the toys
but as Lisbon and San Francisco you still have to land it on the stick.
--
Andrew
E Mail can be altered electronically and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this E Mail are those of the author and not associations or
companies I am involved with.
Michael Sanders
> Apologies if a bit O/T but there was an article in the Mail on Sunday
> yesterday, basically appealing for funds to keep the last Vulcan flying.
Is that the one at Bruntingthorpe?
--
Michael Sanders
Lighting Cameraman
www.glowstars.demon.co.uk
Captain Pugwash
RAF Waddington?
Cheers
Cap'n P.
Michael Sanders <mic...@glowstars.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1enp0lm.6e1qb71aihvwgN%mic...@glowstars.demon.co.uk...
John Bennett
wrote
>John Bennett <johna....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> Apologies if a bit O/T but there was an article in the Mail on Sunday
>> yesterday, basically appealing for funds to keep the last Vulcan flying.
>
>Is that the one at Bruntingthorpe?
>
The replies here have confirmed what I suspected, ie that there may well
have been some basis of truth in the eye-patch story as a "just in case"
measure, but presumably a Mail journalist turned it all around to create
a dramatic story about Vulcan bomber crews going on "suicide missions",
that would at best leave them permanently blinded!!
In no way would I ever wish to denigrate the courage and professionalism
of these RAF crews, who thankfully never had to carry out such a nuclear
strike, but I think articles such as this do no favours to the reality
of the situation they faced and just show how the watchword of modern
"journalism":- "Never let the facts get in the way of good story" is
being applied so often in the media today!:-(
Roger Hird
Captain Pugwash <captain_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't one being used as the 'Gate
> Guardian' at RAF Waddington?
> > > ... there was an article in the Mail on Sunday yesterday, basically
> > > appealing for funds to keep the last Vulcan flying.
> >
> > Is that the one at Bruntingthorpe?
I assume we are talking about the last flying Vulcan - there are a few
airframes still around (Cosford, possibly Duxford . . ).
RogerH
--
Roger Hird
roger...@argonet.co.uk
Running Voyager 2.07 and RISCOS 3.70 on an Acorn StrongARM RiscPC
Gary Marden
Bennett) wrote:
> Surely they would have been able to make a good distance away before the
> bomb detonated, the cockpit windows could be blanked out and/or they
> could simply close and protect their eyes in other ways at the time of
> the flash?
In the film "By Dawn's Early Light" the crew of a B52 pull blackout
curtains across the cockpit windows to protect them from the flash.
Presumably this wouldn't have been beyond the ingenuity of the RAF also.
Cheers
Gary
Vernon
"Andrew P Smith" <and...@spamfree.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bofIRjAp...@tallguy.demon.co.uk...
> In article <t6r2jhc...@corp.supernews.com>, Vernon
> <big_...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >Not at all, IIRC they were fitted with the 10A autopilot, complete with
> >autoland..........
>
> You assume that the landing runway has the military version of ILS. If
> it doesn't then autoland is useless as there is no information coming
> from the ground.....
>
to the airport frequencies and away you go, however the MK10a has/had a
ledex switch to move from one phase of the approach to the next, and this
often stuck, (older washing machines had ledex switches too...) but when it
worked the system was very good (for its time)
> Same problem today with civil airliners - the 777 may have all the toys
> but as Lisbon and San Francisco you still have to land it on the stick.
> --
A lot of civilian airports will not allow the use of autoland simply because
it puts a lot of stress on a small area of the runway. This is also one
reason why the RAF stopped using it.
Andrew P Smith
<big_...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>A lot of civilian airports will not allow the use of autoland simply because
>it puts a lot of stress on a small area of the runway. This is also one
>reason why the RAF stopped using it.
First time I've heard that.
HAnds off landing will normally come down harder than a pilot landing
the plane in order to minimise the risk of aquaplaning on a wet runway.
This will produce more stress through impact force and the fact that the
plane will attempt to land at the correct point on the runway in order
to do the roll off (if programmed to do so).
However ILS will land you where VFR can't.
--
Andrew P Smith
<roger...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>
>I assume we are talking about the last flying Vulcan - there are a few
>airframes still around (Cosford, possibly Duxford . . ).
There used to be one parked at Wellesbourne airfield in Warwickshire.
Richard
they're talking about the patch for "their one eye"..
didn't want no two headed babies post strike.. did they.
"Gary Marden" <majik...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20010123...@majikthise.compulink.co.uk...
Dom Hayzelden
> mission deep into Russia would always be a "one-way trip" (as the Vulcan
> doesn't have the range to return to the UK) the article went on to
> describe how, during and after bombing, all the crew had to wear a
> special protective patch on one eye. It went on to explain that they
> would all be blinded due to the flash of the explosion, but be able to
> make use of the one "good" eye (under the patch) they had left to
> attempt a landing in a "friendly" (Middle East?) country if possible
> before they ran out of fuel!
>
> Surely they would have been able to make a good distance away before the
> bomb detonated, the cockpit windows could be blanked out and/or they
> could simply close and protect their eyes in other ways at the time of
> the flash? It seemed to me this was perhaps the stuff of urban
> mythology or just poor, un-researched journalism. Maybe the eye patch
> story was a "belt and braces" safety feature, a "just in case", but
> surely the crews would not all, as reported, be inevitably blinded
> during a bombing mission?
>
There's a bit of info on the Vulcan (and other Cold War aircraft) at
www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk that may be of interest.
Dom Hayzelden
Adam Aglionby
was actually landed on East Fortunes runway,just,it isn`t long enough for
takeoff.
Adam
Martin Briscoe
from Andrew P Smith <and...@spamfree.co.uk> contains these words:
> In article <4a417d797f...@argonet.co.uk>, Roger Hird
> <roger...@argonet.co.uk> writes
> >
> >I assume we are talking about the last flying Vulcan - there are a few
> >airframes still around (Cosford, possibly Duxford . . ).
There is not a flying Vulcan at the moment but there are plans to get
one in the air again.
See http://www.tvoc.co.uk/index2.htm
MB
Richard Lamont
> In article <4a417d797f...@argonet.co.uk>, Roger Hird
> <roger...@argonet.co.uk> writes
> >
> >I assume we are talking about the last flying Vulcan - there are a few
> >airframes still around (Cosford, possibly Duxford . . ).
>
> There used to be one parked at Wellesbourne airfield in Warwickshire.
And one at Elvington.
--
Richard Lamont At last! At last! At last!
ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk Software that doesn't suck.
http://www.stonix.demon.co.uk/ KDE 2.0: http://www.kde.org/
David Farrant
On the eye patch business, was that not a feature of the B52 crews in Doctor
Strangelove? I know I have seen aircrews wearing them in one film or another
and I think that was the one. Mind you, it could just be my age! ;-)
David Farrant
d.fa...@ntlworld.com
Roger Hird
John
only the pilot had an ejector seat? Pity the rest of the poor crew.
Also I used to know a guy who was in the Fire/Rescue area of the RAF in
1979, he told me that the Vulcans were so bad at that time that they were on
permanent alert to put out engine fires as they landed.
--
Dover Underground
http://website.lineone.net/~johnvaughan01/
John Duell
>
> There is not a flying Vulcan at the moment but there are plans to get
> one in the air again.
>
> See http://www.tvoc.co.uk/index2.htm
>
>
> MB
>
See also http:/www.xl426.com/indexie.htm
JD
Dan McKenzie
to make an exit out of the hatch in the floor of the aircraft, I believe
that the usual scenario was that the front seaters usually survived, the
back seaters usually died, just not enough time to get out. If you have ever
been in the cockpit of a Vulcan you will know why.
Dan McKenzie
Peterborough, UK.
http://fp.coldwar.f9.co.uk
John <johnva...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:t6u7035...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
Craig Blundred
>
> Still off topic, a couple of other points about the Vulcan.. I believe that
> only the pilot had an ejector seat? Pity the rest of the poor crew.
>
> Also I used to know a guy who was in the Fire/Rescue area of the RAF in
> 1979, he told me that the Vulcans were so bad at that time that they were on
> permanent alert to put out engine fires as they landed.
>
Yes both pilots had an ejection seat each and the rest of the crew
needed to bail out of the extremely small hatch through which they
entered. I seem to recall that the Vulcan also had some form of black
out curtain or visor so not sure about the eye patches. If anyone is in
the North East they can check it out for themselves as our Vulcan is
occasionally open to the public on Sundays (volunteer numbers
permitting)
--
Craig Blundred
Vice Chairman
North East Aircraft Museum
Sunderland
www.neam.co.uk
Dan McKenzie
XJ823 Carlisle Airport
XJ824 Duxford
XL318 Hendon
XL319 Sunderland Airport (kept live, apu still operational)
XL360 Coventry
XL391 Blackpool Airport
XL426 Southend Airport ( Performs Fast Taxi runs WOW!!!)
XL569 Cardiff ??
XL575 East Midland Airport ??
XM594 Newark Air Museum
XM597 Museum of Flight East Fortune
XM598 Cosford Aerospace Museum
XM603 BAE Woodford
XM607 RAF Waddington
XM612 Norwich Airport
XM655 Wellsbourne Mountford ( Performs Fast Taxi runs WOW!!!)
XM605 Castle Airforce Base California USA
XL361 RAF Goose Bay Canada
XM606 Barksdale AFB Louisiana
XM573 Offutt AFB Nebraska
XH588 Bruntingthorpe (the last flying Vulcan and hopefully soon to fly
again)
--
Dan McKenzie
Peterborough, UK.
http://fp.coldwar.f9.co.uk
This message is CONFIDENTIAL and meant only for the recipient above. If
received in error please delete it at once.
Any opinions given are my own and are not those of my employer or any other
group with which I may be associated unless specifically stated otherwise.
Richard Lamont <ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94m8i5$13k$1...@stonix.demon.co.uk...
jed...@nospamhotmail.com
If they had one eye out of action then wouldnt that screw up their depth of field
(victors and valients wouldnt make it across the channel)
Ed the wet blanket
M.J.Powell
<johnva...@lineone.net> writes
>Still off topic, a couple of other points about the Vulcan.. I believe that
>only the pilot had an ejector seat? Pity the rest of the poor crew.
The pilot and co-pilot had ejector seats. The others in the back had to
open the lower hatch and jump. (Straight into the front wheels if down).
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Nigel P Whittington
pilot/copilot. The talking baggage had to climb out of a hatch in the
floor.
--
Nigel P Whittington, Hull, U.K.
East Yorkshire coast geology and geomorphology
www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/ecolodge/25/
Roger Hird
Really? By the way, it's "Valiant".
> Ed the wet blanket
Indeed!
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Nigel P Whittington <coast...@my-deja.com> writes:
<snip> [Vulcan front seaters only had ejection seats.]
> ISTR that the 'Victor' had a similar system. Ejector seats for the
> pilot/copilot. The talking baggage had to climb out of a hatch in the
> floor.
So they're doomed if the plane explodes, like, *NOW*, but surely the point
was that if the plane was badly damaged to the point of abandonment, but
still vaguely controllable, the pilots could stay in long enough, holding
it steady, for the back seaters to escape, *then* eject?
Or does that assume undue altruism on the part of the drivers? ;-)
- Huge
John Duell
> > ISTR that the 'Victor' had a similar system. Ejector seats for the
> > pilot/copilot. The talking baggage had to climb out of a hatch in the
> > floor.
>
>
If my memory serves me correctly, wasn't there a crash at Heathrow once
where a very experienced Vulcan pilot had flown the aircraft round the world
and was trying to land it in front of the assembled Press corps. It was
something
crazy like an altimeter setting misdialled, and he touched down in a cabbage
patch,
bounced and stalled. The airaft exploded and the pilot ejected, leaving the
3 crew
in the rear to their fate. There was a hell of an uproar in the papers, but
being good
old Blighty, the RAF just ignored them. So no change there then!
John D
Paul Wells
http://www.desertfoxx.net/raf1.html
Paul
"John Duell" <john...@sniffout.com> wrote in message
news:uClLwqv...@stannard.sniffout.com...
M.J.Powell
Tyson <hm...@redxhatx.com> writes
Remember the Vulcan that crashed at London A/P in the 50s? It hit the
ground short of the threshold and bounced about 200 ft up, the two
pilots ejected but the 4 behind died.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Jim Hawthorne
forces?, one eyed air crew, well *I* never!
Can we collective improve the tone of talking about one eyed beings from
this group, I suspect that some military officers mess are laughing at this
thread and placing their own slant on it - as is the Flight Sergeant in some
place in Wiltshire scanning through his NG files and reading this thread.
Yours,
Jim.
Andrew P Smith
<PDR...@freezone.co.uk> writes
>as is the Flight Sergeant in some
>place in Wiltshire scanning through his NG files and reading this thread.
I doubt very much that happens. Echelon could do it for them. But is
anyone really interested in a group of well meaning enthusiasts
discussing past military things and what's left down a dis-used ROC post
in the middle of Derbyshire?
Somehow, I don't think so.
Roger Hird
Andrew P Smith <and...@spamfree.co.uk> wrote:
> >as is the Flight Sergeant in some place in Wiltshire scanning through
> >his NG files and reading this thread.
> I doubt very much that happens. Echelon could do it for them.
Well, maybe the Flight Sergeant just subscribes to uk.rec.sub . . . But do
people really think that if Echelon exists [in the form people seem to
believe], that its "product" would be available to any other than a tiny
group of selected people on a need to know basis and on topics of serious
concern?
A recent well informed journalist writing in uk.crypto pointed to reasons
to believe that the capability people call Echelon was mainly directed at
military signals - and at things like missile telemetry signals more than
at straightforward comms.
Andy Dingley
>the two pilots ejected but the 4 behind died.
AIUI, the three backseaters could generally exit rapidly, following a
runway fire or similar. Their seats were designed to collapse quickly,
and they had already trained at making rapid exits.
The trouble really started when one of the "jump seats" was in use to
carry a supernumerary passenger (an air cadet, in one case - XL385 in
1967 - although all survived). This seat blocked the egress and it
usually had an inexperienced pasenger sitting in it.
Blackout curtains didn't slow the backseaters in exiting, but in one
case (XM604 in 1968) they slowed the pilot leaving, almost fatally, as
he couldn't see if they'd left before he ejected. This was another
flight with four backseaters, all of whom died.
--
Cats have nine lives, which is why they rarely post to Usenet.
jed...@hotmail.com
Sorry Roger didnt mean to offend you with my lack of aeronautical knowledge
Roger Hird
Not offended - just being pedantic.
And, going back to your original comment, the Valiant was a relatively
primitive a/c (though in its day it could have deliverd its weapons) but
the Victor was something else again!
Roger
David Farrant
"Roger Hird" <roger...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a43865305...@argonet.co.uk...
bomber to drop live nuclear weapons, in the atmospheric testing programs?
The Valiant may have been less sophisticated than later planes, but as you
say, in its day it would have done the job.
David Farrant
Andy Dingley
>The Valiant may have been less sophisticated than later planes, but as you
>say, in its day it would have done the job.
Didn;t the Valiants get pulled very early on, owing to fatgiue or
cracking problems (wing spar ?).
Why did Valiant never carry Blue Steel ?
David Farrant
"Andy Dingley" <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:etc67ts7n9eh72gr7...@4ax.com...
Correct, The Valiants suffered from stress fractures in main spars and were
all withdrawn early.
Valiants did carry Blue Steel in the test program, WP204 carried two fifths
scale models which were dropped over Aberporth ranges in 1957. Full sized
Blue Steel test vehicles were carried in 1958. Vulcan XA903 also joined in
this program then. However, it was left to Vulcans and Victors to carry on
the tests in Woomera. Perhaps the later planes had better altitude or other
performance than the Valiant? No doubt someone here will know more!
David Farrant
fuf...@my-deja.com
"David Farrant" <d.fa...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Correct, The Valiants suffered from stress fractures in main spars
and were
> all withdrawn early.
> Valiants did carry Blue Steel in the test program, WP204 carried two
fifths
> scale models which were dropped over Aberporth ranges in 1957. Full
sized
> Blue Steel test vehicles were carried in 1958. Vulcan XA903 also
joined in
> this program then. However, it was left to Vulcans and Victors to
carry on
> the tests in Woomera. Perhaps the later planes had better altitude or
other
> performance than the Valiant? No doubt someone here will know more!
>
There is a book published by Ian Allan which is written by the
commander of the squadron which flew the bomb tests in the Pacific.
I think it was called "Operation Grapple" (I have a copy at home under
piles of other stuff so I doubt I'll find it in a hurry). However it
did deal with the flash aspects and I seem to recall went into some
detail about the transition the squadron made from Vulcans from
Valiants. I can't remember whether both types were used in the weapons
tests though. If anyone's interested I'll try and dig the book out
Nick P. Norwood
Gary Marden <majik...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20010123...@majikthise.compulink.co.uk...
> In article <Q++Y7iE7...@virgin.net>, johna....@virgin.net (John
> Bennett) wrote:
>
> In the film "By Dawn's Early Light" the crew of a B52 pull blackout
> curtains across the cockpit windows to protect them from the flash.
> Presumably this wouldn't have been beyond the ingenuity of the RAF also.
And then pull them back again 'cos they're scared about running into
civvys....Leaving the female first officer blind in one eye IIRC.
Nick in Belfast
M.J.Powell
<roger...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <xtxc6.3010$jn6.47269@news2-hme0>,
> <jed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry Roger didnt mean to offend you
>
>Not offended - just being pedantic.
>
>And, going back to your original comment, the Valiant was a relatively
>primitive a/c (though in its day it could have deliverd its weapons) but
>the Victor was something else again!
When it didn't lose its tailplane.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
M.J.Powell
<din...@codesmiths.com> writes
>"M.J.Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> a écrit :
>
>>the two pilots ejected but the 4 behind died.
>
>AIUI, the three backseaters could generally exit rapidly, following a
>runway fire or similar. Their seats were designed to collapse quickly,
>and they had already trained at making rapid exits.
Not in the one I flew in. XA892
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Roger Hird
> When it didn't lose its tailplane.
I know the pre-production prototype lost its tailplane (fatigue failure of
a bolt, wasn't it?) - were there other instances in its 25 years or so in
service?
RogerH
M.J.Powell
<roger...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <ToIWAFAl...@pickmere.demon.co.uk>,
> M.J.Powell <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >the Victor was something else again!
>
>> When it didn't lose its tailplane.
>
>I know the pre-production prototype lost its tailplane (fatigue failure of
>a bolt, wasn't it?) - were there other instances in its 25 years or so in
>service?
2 or 3 IIRC.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Jacqueline Conlon
The ejection of the pilot and co-pilot from a stricken Vulcan - leaving the
crew to perish caused RAF big problems with its aircrew morale. Aircrew who
abandoned their crew by using the ejection seats were usually "blackballed"
by the rest of the squadron - despite the standing order that the flight
crew must not compromise their own safety. Vulcan flight crew who received
the snub from their squadron had to be transferred out quickly to maintain
the units efficiency.
At this time the ejection seat designer Martin-Baker Aircraft Co Ltd devised
a method of providing assisted escape for the Vulcan crew - located in the
fuselage. A series of sequenced actions ejected the three rear crew members
thro' an upper escape hatch. It was demonstrated in a static test but was
never accepted by MoD. Notably, the technology that was rejected for the
Vulcan went on to form the basis of the Martin-Baker sequenced ejection seat
system in the 4 seat Grumman EA6B of the US Navy. An aircraft still in
service today.
Ano Rak
Steve Walker
> > In the film "By Dawn's Early Light" the crew of a B52 pull blackout
> > curtains across the cockpit windows to protect them from the flash.
> > Presumably this wouldn't have been beyond the ingenuity of the RAF also.
At least they didn't make the poor buggers climb out with a bucket of
whitewash, as planned for civilian survival around that time........ ;o)
Roger Hird
Steve Walker <steve-...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> At least they didn't make the poor buggers climb out
It works just as well if you apply it from the inside, doesn't it?
> with a bucket of whitewash, as planned for civilian survival around that
> time........ ;o)
It wasn't as silly as you think. It was a basic damage limitation method
that would have been recommended in the "period of rising international
tension and conventional war" that it was expected would precede any
nuclear exchange.
It was a basic precaution that would have helped survival in three ways.
first, if people were indoors after an attack warning, it would have done
just what the blinds were designed to do in V bomber cockpits - stopped
people being permanently blinded by flash - second it would have stopped
them getting massive flash burns and third it would have reduced the
likelyhood of house interiors (curtains, carpets, furniture) being ignited
by flash.
None of this would have been any help if you were near the explosion - but
for those whose houses were far enough away not to be completely destroyed
by the fireball or by the blast (which would have followed some - possibly
many seconds later) it would have made a massive difference to short term
survival.
Think of the images of the Japanese bomb injuries - people with flash
burns or flash blindness - the Protect and Survive precautions would have
significantly reduced those.
David Farrant
whitewash is easily and cheaply available to everyone and so simple to use
anyone can do it, therefore it was more likely to be done. It does sound
comical, but in this case it really would have had some benefit to those not
in the total destruction area of the bomb. As to the long term survival if
the attack had been a heavy one, that is of course another matter. The two
bombs dropped on Japan were small and less damaging than later developments
and of course were the only two dropped.
David Farrant