This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British / War This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the War films task force. Military history: War films This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  War films task force United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article has been amended to state that the film is based on a true story. However, 633 squadron definitely never existed. Is the suggestion that a different squadron carried out a similar attack? If so which, when and where? Is there an article on Wikipedia or elsewhere about the real attack that the film is based on? If so we should link this article to the one about the real attack otherwise we should not make this claim and revert the statement. Shimbo 20:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The squadron is listed as fictional in Wikipedia's remarkably comprehensive listing of RAF squadrons, so deletion of the claim about the reality of the squadron appears justified. The question of whether the story was based on real mission(s) is a separate issue, and would certainly make a useful addition to this entry. Robma 23:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a famous RAF attack on the Gestapo's headquarters in Copenhagen, Denmark. I'll look out some details if I can, but I'm pretty sure this is the incident which the film reflects, albeit with almost all the details changed. From memory, I think that it was Mosquito aeroplanes which were used. – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has often been stated that "633 Squadron" was based on a true story but in fact this is not the case. Rather the story was "inspired by the exploits of the British and Commonwealth Mosquito Air Crews" (as is stated just after the main titles of the film). There never was a 633 Squadron nor was there ever an attack on a factory in a Norwegian fiord using "earthquake bombs". In fact the bombs which appear in the 1964 film version look like standard RAF 4,000 lb "cookie" bombs.

The 1956 book (and the later film) was undoubtedly inspired by a number of daring low-level raids carried out by Mosquitoes in WW2 including the "Shell House Raid" on Copenhagen,attacks on various Gestapo HQs and the Amiens Raid (which was also the inspiration for the 1968 film "Mosquito Squadron").The book's author Frederick E Smith was an airgunner in WW2 and later write a number of sequels to "633 Squadron" starting with "Operation Rhine Maiden" in 1976.

Colin

Reference may also be made to Richard Rhodes book "The making of the atomic bomb" and the destruction of the Norwegian heavy water. It would appear that like CS Forester's book on the Bismarck and the suppression of information on Radar during and after the war similar effects were playing their part in this story line as it can be posited that rumours of the futile attacks on the occupied Norway atomic bomb research activities and the actions leading up to the final successful attacks on the ferry by brave Norwegian saboteurs (and others) may lie behind the plot of this film.These real events in so far as as truthful reports have been released appear to relate to a combination of special forces and RAF activities and are possibly far more worthy of the beautiful music that was produced for the film. I still remember my father's anger and rejection of the information when I informed him of Richard Rhodes account which was so contrary to the news he had so diligently followed during and after the war. Des Fourie (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)DesDes Fourie (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)^[1][reply]

Does it really matter? The incontrovertible fact is that the deHavilland Mosquito was probably the most versatile warplane of WW2. No other aircraft could "do it all" the way "Mossie" did. A testament to deHavilland and everyone who had a part in its design, development, manufacturing, and deployment.

Image:Six three three squadron433.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all sure that Grant survives in the film - although he unquestionably does in the book. He crash lands the Mosquito and his navigator, having hauled him out of the burning plane, asks "Where does it hurt, Skipper?" Grant replies "All over" with a laconic smile and then his head rolls back, eyes shut, in a gesture which I have always taken to mean death. PDAWSON3 (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the factory was destroyed, why did the two surviving Mosquitos head back down the heavily-defended fjord, rather than around or over? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps when Cliff Robertson had Howard Koch rewrite the screenplay for him he or Mr Koch insisted on a trendy 'antiwar' slant similar to Frank Sinatra demanding his character's demise at the end of 'Von Ryan's Express'Foofbun (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the article makes no mention of this, although I note that the Dam Busters article does actually include a brief note. The film is about a specially-selected air crew who are trained for a secret mission to destroy a seemingly-impregnable target using new, specially-designed bombs (the "earthquake bombs" used in the film are based on a real-life design by none other than Barnes Wallace); numerous bomb runs are attempted before the target is finally destroyed; when it does finally start to collapse the phrase "It's going!" is heard in both films; beforehand, several planes are either shot down, or crash because they fly too close to cliffs. Furthermore, both films have iconic theme tunes, and they've both been cited as influences on the Death Star trench run. Lee M (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/edit from submissions: "Related Trivia; Cinema-goers in the late 1960s who paid to see 663 Squadron and The Great Escape as part of a double feature in the UK's Odeon chain of cinemas were rather puzzled to see Angus Lennie, in the same RAF uniform, in both movies. If viewed in that order, Lennie's character appears to be the sole survivor of 633 Squadron only to go 'wire happy' and get shot dead while trying to climb a barbed fence in The Great Escape. Gillibrand (John Meillon) achieved new fame late in life as sidekick "Wally" in the movie Crocodile Dundee but he was also in the post-nuclear holocaust movie On The Beach. In that film he plays a US seaman who deserts Gregory Peck's submarine to 'go home' to a dead San Francisco. Johnny Briggs (whose character was killed in the 633 Squadron training scenes) had a small role in Sink The Bismarck but achieved later UK fame in the long-running TV soap opera Coronation Street."

While interesting, trivia is "frowned upon" and has to be replaced by verifiable and documented facts. I am placoing this section here unitl citations can be forthcoming. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the novel the target is a hydro-electric plant producing heavy water for the Nazis nuclear program. IIRC from the book (it is a long time since I last read it) standard bombs are used, but the aircraft need to invert at the last minute to 'fling' the bombs up into an overhang, which then crashes down onto the plant. The overhang has the local name "Trolls Head".

The squadron are depicted as one of the RAFs premier light-bomber units, initially flying Boston bombers and receive Mosquitos in order to carry put the mission against the plant in Norway.

In my opinion the original books would make an excellent series of TV serials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love the Jericho ( sic Fortitude ) raid , successful in both the raid and fooling the germans in concentrating their forces at pas de calais. I adore the De Havilland Mosiquito. 82.31.0.89 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book's 'heavy water' would make more sense than the film's 'V-2 rocket fuel', because V-2 rocket fuel was just ethanol -- industrial alcohol. You wouldn't need a special secret plant to produce that. However, the film's 1944 timing makes more sense, as the novel's main action is in the spring of 1943, when there were in fact no Mosquito fighter-bombers in service yet. The first squadrons were not operational till October and were not fully capable till early '44. Khamba Tendal (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The part where they need to fly through a narrow valley armed with ant aircraft missiles and then hit a small target is identical to the Top Gun: Maveric. Also the pre mission training in a different land shape. 81.166.170.26 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]