P-47 Pacific Theater, The Brisbane Tank And Why It Matters
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- In the Pacific theater, the 348th fighter group of the 5th Air Force flying P-47 Thunderbolts used a locally sourced drop tank. It was designed an implemented in less than 8 weeks and gave the P-47s in theater a 450 mile combat radius.
This tank is commonly called the "Brisbane Tank". It's quite a story.
Please Support This Channel:
Merch Store: gaat.creator-s...
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
Please Support This Channel:
www.patreon.com/GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
23 pressurized air line (from supercharger (literally loader) to the drop tank (literally extra tank))
24 overpressure valve
25 check valve
you got it right
I love how the whole p47 range thing is a thorn in Greg's side and he has the the receipts as to why. Gregs use of primary sources is what makes his videos excellent
Plus, angry Greg is very entertaining to listen to.
Greg is totally excellent!
I'd have more confidence in those red numbers if they actually made red P47s 😉
Why thorn in his side? Having a bee in the bonnet would be be less painful.
Never underestimate the capacity for Australian auotmotive engineers to come up with a bodge job better than the original.
lol, that's funny.
The last of the V-8 Interceptors, for instance.
bailing wire ,bog& garden hose & off we go. Look out Bob Semple.
except, it wasn't Australians that did it. It was the American pilots and ground crews themselves that came up with teh mods. Ford in Australia was simply commissioned to build them.
“Bodge job”…That’s a McGyver to Americans…
Based on everything I have learnt about Dugout Doug on the Pacific War Podcast I'm sure he rejected Doolittle as he didn't want anyone to overshadow him
Most likely. He was quite vain when it came to others challenging his apple cart is my understanding.
I agree. Doolittle had enough reputation that he could stand up to MacArthur. There's no way MacArthur would put himself in that situation. Luckily, Kenny was able to perform as well as he did. I read that MacArthur kept interfering(sp) with Kenny's plans. One day Kenny put a dot on a piece of paper and told MacArthur that was how much he knew about the use of airplanes, and that Kenny knew the rest of air combat. I don't know if that story is true or not.
While l agree Mac had a stadium sized ego l do not think you get to high rank without a large ego. The important thing is to not let it control you.
@@mpetersen6 You should check out The Legend of Dugout Doug-Episode from the Unauthorized History of the Pacific War podcast. They make it clear not just that he was an awful human being but a lousy strategist who was almost universally despised by his fellow officers and those who served under him. Below is a poem written about him by his own men
Dugout Doug MacArthur lies ashaking on the Rock
Safe from all the bombers and from any sudden shock
Dugout Doug is eating of the best food on Bataan
And his troops go starving on.
Dugout Doug's not timid, he's just cautious, not afraid
He's protecting carefully the stars that Franklin made
Four-star generals are rare as good food on Bataan
And his troops go starving on.
Dugout Doug is ready in his Kris Craft for the flee
Over bounding billows and the wildly raging sea
For the Japs are pounding on the gates of Old Bataan
And his troops go starving on...
@@mpetersen6 Far too many including Mac, fail to keep their ginormous egos in check.
Ford Australia built the Brisbane tanks. Designed and built 100 tanks in 10 days. Ford Australia built 68,499 tanks from August 1943 onwards. Small women welded the tanks together from the inside. Ford Australia was a major supplier of war material to the Pacific theatre. Cheers.
Eagle Farm (no "S") became a landing field in about the mid-1920s. It is famous for Kingsford-Smith's arrival there at the conclusion of the first flight across the Pacific (amongst a few others).
The original airport built there was much closer to the City. It was about 5 miles downstream from the main reach of the river, which contained most of the domestic port infrastructure at the town. Larger ships berthed at Hamilton which is much closer to the airport. There was a military wharf there too. There is a major rock bar across the river nearby which ultimately led to all of the port facilities being relocated to the river mouth today. A big bridge goes right above the rock bar now.
In 1942 the main airport was at Archerfield which is today a general aviation airport in Brisbane's south. The main RAAF field was and is Amberley just south of Ipswich, a separate city, to Brisbane's south west.
Initially, aircraft were unloaded from ships near Hamilton and towed/trucked out to Amberley for construction by the RAAF airframe fitters there. This was mainly P40s and P39s with a few P38s thrown in. B26s seem to have been flown directly into Archerfield, but don't quote me on that one.
In February 1942 ships were diverted to Brisbane whilst en-route to the Phillipines. Army personnel were initially bivouaced at the Eagle Farm race course. It was a swampy area with heat, rain and mosquitoes and it was late summer. There was nothing for them to do and movement was restricted. Morale wasn't high.
The traffic and general inefficiency required a massive adjustment. The US rapidly decided to fund upgrades to the port facilities and a major upgrade to the Eagle Farm Airport so that aircraft arriving by ship could be assembled there. Additional freight areas were built for storage and redistribution.
An amazing amount of those buildings (re-purposed) still stand today and are easily found.
A new Eagle farm airport was constructed to replace the WW2 build and was opened during the bi-centenary year 1988. It is to the north of the old airport but shares some of its infrastructure at the south end.
Interestingly the first aircraft to use the new airport (before it officially opened) was the visiting USAAF Thunderbird team who decided to put on a full impromptu display there after seeking permission to use the fully ready but not opened main runway.
Impressed by the AC/DC reference too! Thanks.
Greg: The detail in this video is the icing on the cake in the already brilliant case you made in your recent debate with Mr. Marshall, in which you effectively devastated the myth that the disastrous 8th Air Force losses in 1943 were due to the unavailability of a fighter with sufficient range to provide escort cover. The Bomber Mafia's refusal to equip P-47s with drop tanks was, in my view, criminally negligent. Superb work, as usual. Looking forward to the follow-up video on actual Pacific theater missions. - Vito
Thanks Vito.
Have you considered that your remark might sound a little silly? Your position is that the P-47C, as it existed in August 1943 was capable of escorting 8th AF to Schweinfurt (410mi from Halesworth, 460mi from Debden). Greg's tortuous calculation summary is for a hypothetical 220gal steel tank that is presented with NO escort duties, instead of tethering the P-47s to the bombers, in what the AAF described as a Fighter Mission. All straight line calcs with no essing to restrict ground speed to that of the bombers. The 'charts' reproduced by Greg 1945 - which superceded the 8th AF document - cites the demonstrated ranges as Fighter Mission. Also Note that straight line cruise speed in lower right corner of P-47C Pilot manual for 200gal Republic Ferry tank is 200mph IAS, which at sea level is shown to be ~2.1miles per gallon - not the 2.6 he slipped in for the presentation.
The losses WERE caused by P-47C limitations with the only usable drop tank available to P-47C mount scheme for Schweinfurt mission. What could have been possible even if the Republic tank was capable of delivering fuel above 20,000 feet, is speculation becuase only the 7psi version was ever made. At 12:13, the discussion of Australia 200 gal tank notes that it fed saisfactorily to 17,000 feet with the C-9 electric pump (bottom of page).
Greg provided anecdotal references to 28 and 30K missons, but has yet to document that the Brisbane tank SOP was to climb above and cruise mostly at higher altitudes until fuel was drained. I posed a simple challenge -prove your beliefs with documented 5th AF Mission Summaries for 348FG missions through December 1943. They exist. hey will have the data including TO and Land times, R/V location and altitudes if escort to C-47 or B-25 or B-24/-17, and Break Escort times.. All required before any range calculation makes sense. I also pointed out that 9th FG P-38s were the LR dominant fighter for bomber escort.
Your belief system accepts that the 'bomber mafia' would knowingly risk the AAF strategic bombardment vision based on stubborn belief that the bomber would always get through, when in fact that myth was punctured in Spanish Civil War and BoB. "They HOPED' that the 8th AF could fight its way without continuous escort, but were in process of speeding up LR capability of P-51B and P-38J in mid 1943 before the Schwenfurt- Regensburg disaster smacked the AAF leadership. Certainly 'they' (whether they were Eisenhower or Marshall) regretted pulling P-38s out of 8th AF and sending them to Africa. Consider the differences had the oiginal four P-38Fgs were the escort instead of he 1943 version P-47C?
@@drgondog There are numerous examples of US leadership making arbitrary decisions that cost lives. Abandoning onboard guns in fighters, running convoys at the same time of day, on the same day of the week. Posting small units on remote outposts and beyond the range of fire support. Arbitrarily changing the specified cartridge propellant in the M193 Ball, etc.
That is just off the top of my head. Generals & Admirals tend to have enormous egos that override their brains. I have personally seen/experienced this an multiple occasions.
At any given moment in US Military history there are as many incompetent Generals and Admirals as there are competent ones. Some who became famous in spite of their incompetence.
@@drgondog - I appreciate your erudite and articulate 4-paragraph burst of factoids, but they are largely irrelevant to Greg's point, as I understand it. The fact remains that Gen. Kenney proved the time-honored maxim, "Where there's a will, there's a way". The point is that 8th Air Force command didn't have the will, leaving you with the belief that there was no way. Actually, you're right; there really was no way if they wouldn't even try.
@@Vito_Tuxedo Very funny response.
Jees, where to start. Firstly Greg, thank you for what you do. This is a quality product, my favourite channel by far. Im a relatively clued up warbird nerd, have grown up in an aviation family and work as a powerplant engineer for P&W. This said l have learned so much and really want to commend you. Keep it up. Aviation is interesting, (engineering & flying) WW2 aviation is, in my opinion another level of interesting. Well done. Si, Christchurch, New Zealand.
I need to stop 5 minutes in. The total shit for brains incompetence of senior staffers in the Army Air Force and subsequent U.S. Air Force blows my mind. I will return to this later. Greg your channel is amazing.
I feel your pain.
Sometimes perfect is the enemy of progress
The tragedy of the aircrew lost for this.
and they were bright minds compare to their counterparts in the US Navy...
Anyone that is ever been in the military or a big bureaucratic organization knows well that most of the military brass are shit for brains
I'm born and bred in Brisbane. and it is Eagle Farm not Eagle farms . Thanks for pronouncing Brisbane correctly .
Was that the race course in the back of the photo of the airfield? I didn't recognize the town until I saw that 🏇 🙂
Greg: there is no one that quantifies the dynamics of the engineering and the relation of the availability of performance to the pilot, and the potential it could have made in the battle space like you do. I cannot express the quality of your insight to the enthusiast like my self that imagines using the machine in time, and facing the theater opposition while trying to wring out survival in a type. Well done sir!
Great video, the debate left me about 90% sure you were in the right, and I am fully convinced now.
Thanks, I'll get up even more receipts in the next video. I couldn't fit them all into this one.
One million times yes. The naysayers on a certain web forum have been very quiet.....
yet, p-38 were already ranging over the Pacific with 165 and 300gal tanks in 1943 with little to no interference. and P-47 were experimenting and using tanks in ETO anyways in 1943.
even in the south pacific with a viable 200gal tank, under the command of a pro-P-47 commander, P-47 still couldn't reach rabaul in 1943.
@@SoloRenegade P38s encountered formidable interference from Mitsubishi A6Ms.
@@bryanwheeler1608 what's your point? every US fighter in the pacific faced Zeros and other japanese aircraft. And P-38s, P-40s, F4F, P-39, F6F, F4U, P-51, and more all scored favorably against them.
I love all the facts and numbers you dig up on your P-47 crusade….
but he leaves out tons of inconvenient details too. like how the P-47 vs P-38 dogfight was intentionally stacked in the P-47 favor. Or how the P-38 were already using 165-300gal tanks in 1943 without interference. or how the P-47 even with a viable 200gal tank still couldn't reach Rabaul in 1943. or how the P-47N even with 1300gal total fuel (570gal internal) still couldn't reach Japan from Iwo Jima.
@@SoloRenegade sources
@@JakobM16 Same sources as greg. But here are some titles for you.
Pacific Profiles Volume 10 (Michael J Claringbould)
Squardons! No.2 and No.23 (Phil H Listemann)
General Kenny Reports (George C Kenney), primary source for the comment in question case, read pages 264-265, in which Kenney describes how he stacked teh deck to prove a point, then ended the mock dogfights before the P-38 gained the upper hand and the point of the mock fight was ruined)
Kenney also describes how his P-47s lacked range to reach Rabaul and other issues. Negative details Greg conveniently ignores.
Kearby's Thunderbolts (John C Stanaway)
I have about 40 books on teh P-47, units, etc, with more on teh way, as well as manuals, reports, etc. Pretty much all teh sources greg cites and more.
I absolutely love the detail of doing flight calculations! Can't wait for the missions video.
While you've definitely changed my mind on the P-47 with your excellent series of videos regarding this airplane (including this one as the latest), I do hope you'll cover in depth that other somewhat overlooked red-headed stepchild (compared with the Corsair) of WW2 in the Hellcat someday. :) I know you've included it in various videos (like the Corsair and Hellcat vs the FW-190 and Bf-109) but I keep holding out hope you'll cover the remaining R2800 fighter of the war with its own video someday.
I will do that.
If not mistaken an early war Pacific P-47 is under restoration. Maybe contact them and see if they have found where the extra pump went.
This is an awesome follow up to the debate and effectively addresses any challenge to the argument that the range limitations of the P-47 were imposed by intrusive “bomber mafia” policy. The argument is airtight!! The fact that Kenney could solve the problem with a little outsourcing is probably all you need to know and Greg goes way beyond that which is great and adds some humor at times to the video.
Great work on this topic. It makes a lot of sense. A somewhat related topic are the local weapons that Australia produced when WW2 started and England could no longer be relied upon for supply. The CAC Boomerang fighter, Sentinel tank, and Owen gun being notable examples. They may not have been cutting edge, or ended up being as needed due to US supply becoming available, but it was a very large effort from a small population with a small industrial base.
Excellent work! Thanks for giving me excellent info for my occasional trips to the National Museum of the USAF with friends and visitors to the area. I’m not any kind of a pilot, so your work is very educational.
Greg you are right with your items 23 to 25. The comment in brackets at item 23 says: from charger to the drop tank. If you run into trouble on german documents, contact me. I will be happy to help. Thanks for your efforts. Best regards.
I instantly thought the reason Doolittle not getting job, was a hero with larger than life profile. Dug out Doug would have hated anybody with Public profile be as big as his own.
Please reference the lengthy comment I posted on this very topic yesterday. Unfortunately, I think you are peddling more anti-MacArthur propaganda, whether you know it or not. Hopefully, my post will shed light on a different viewpoint for you to consider. Thanks.
Eye opening for sure. Fantastic video. Sad how many good men died because of large egos.
As ever Greg, just a fantastic in-depth look at a subject. Well researched, well edited, well delivered.
I love it when history YTers go to period documentation to make their case. Great stuff Greg. You really laid out the facts and data from the period primary sources.
This is an amazing review thank you. The thought that the B17s in Europe could have been escorted by P47 but weren’t because of let’s say a lack of communications is sad beyond words.
I suspect there could be some confusion re. tank capacity. Ford Australia would be using an imperial gallon, not a U.S. gallon. The imperial gallon is approximately 20% larger than the U.S. gallon.
Yes, in fact the Pacific Theater Thunderbolt manual has the capacities in Imperial Gallons with US gallons in parenthesis. However the Brisbane tank holds 220 US Gallons.
no, not how it works. if the US designed a 200gal tank, then modified that tank, then it remains US gal. But as greg points out, the gal designations are not always 100% accurate to their true volumes, just like how engine Cubic Inches are rounded to a nearby value. All US flight manuals will remain in US gal for flight planning as well.
Clearly, your channel is one of the best researched, lucid, and intrinsically worthwhile sites on YT. This topic, in particular, to me, represents a significant revision to the historical record regarding escort fighters in WW2. And it's about time. Scapegoating "droptanks" for the USAAF bomber losses in 1943 remains an historical inaccuracy and should be amended. That the Bomber Mafia held fast to its pre-war mantra is unsurprising: But obfuscation of the historical record to cover up strategic failures serves no real purpose.
Enjoyed this video, and I am looking forward to the next one about operations.
A very welcome return to form. A very interesting video.
I could get college credits on WW2 drop tanks after watching these shows. Thanks!
literally saw Bonnie fly in St. Louis this past Sunday.
Nice.
MacArthur didn't want anybody taking his limelight.
That was my thought. Doolittle was a camera magnet, MacArthur wouldn't abide by that.
For Sure…. That’s what I was thinking!!
Please reference the lengthy comment I posted on this very topic yesterday. Unfortunately, I think you are peddling more anti-MacArthur propaganda, whether you know it or not. Hopefully, my post will shed light on a different viewpoint for you to consider. Thanks.
@clarkenoble Will do, and yes, I'm peddling anti-MacArthur vibes.😁
Greg - in the past, I have praised you as a historian, which is indisputable.
This time, I'm giving you a shout out for the AC/DC "Whole Lotta Rosie" reference - which is entirely appropriate, give the Australian context of this discussion!
Thanks. I'm glad you understood the reference.
Never ceases to amaze me how many short sighted Armed services can be on allowing details that allow things to work better for all concerned to eventual detrement of forward actions. Even today how often the air force tries to kill the A10. During WWII Look at this tank matter, Look at losses the daylight bombing had before the P51.
My grandfather served under MacArthur in NG his only comment about him was something about a SOB . Only thing he said about it. 👍 🇺🇲
So he and President Truman saw eye to eye on the subject...
"Whole lotta Rosey" Nice reference 😀
oh, and apropos, it's an Aussie band so it all clicks!
I should point out MacArthur thought everyone but himself under delivered, and general kenny was something of a Yes man who Worshipped MacArthur almost as much as MacArthur did
Really? Yes man? Interesting.
Please reference the lengthy comment I posted on this very topic yesterday. Unfortunately, I think you are peddling more anti-MacArthur propaganda, whether you know it or not. Hopefully, my post will shed light on a different viewpoint for you to consider. Thanks.
26:52 When you consider the Battle of Midway, the SBDs very obviously exceeded their quoted range numbers in their search for the Japanese carrier force. And most of them were still able to make it back to the American carriers.
On his seven part series about the P47, Greg does mention the aircraft had drop tank plumbing, pumps, hard points, etc entirely, because the British called for them. Republic installed systems on all aircraft, as two separate versions would complicate factory operation.
The spare tanks were also a British invention. Littering Germany with aircraft grade aluminium had to be avoided.
I got to see Bonnie (the restored P47 Razorback Greg mentioned) at her firsr airshow debut at EAA last year and by God was she a beautiful sight. I can't wait to see her again this summer
36:57 damn good picture...! Looks awesome, one can only see little white tails cruising
Missed the whole P-47 drop tank debate on the European theater, I am just a WWII fan/books etc for 40 years, just a ground based fan, I was expecting a conclusion ? I guess I missed it.
I love your inputs Greg, a very intelligent and smart historian ! I wonder how these two videos combine at the same times ? Is there a Final AT THE SAME TIME conclusion video coming ?
WHY Greg ? Tell us what we all suspect ?
Additional Note re:MacArthur.
He was very repectful of chain of command and he respected both Marshall and Arnold. His problem was with Brett. Arnold's problem was to replace Brett with a competent leader that could work well with MacArthur. Doolittle was a COLONEL at that time and a couple of years away from being deemed a candidate to command an AIR FORCE.
MacArthur's 'ego based adversaries' were Admrals King and Nimitz. Both Kenney and Brett were too low on the pay grade to worry about - even moreso Doolittle. Recall that Mac already had one MOH, plus 2 DSCs and 7 Silver Stars from WWI. He would have respected Doolittle but not as a threat to his limelight.
Also recall that Arnold promoted to direct reports Brereton (10th and 9th AF), Chennault (14th AF), Kenney (5th AF - all on the out's pre WWII from the 'bomber mafia'
Ha! Thank you. At least I'm not alone in my defense of MacArthur against these ridiculous assertions that he always made decisions based upon ego.
One correction to your comment, though. MacArthur did NOT receive the MOH prior to WWII. However, he was nominated for the MOH TWICE before WWII. Once for his actions in Vera Cruz as a captain and then later for his actions in WWI.
Anyway, I hope you get to read the comment I just left related to the topic at hand. Have a good day!
@@clarkenoble - I agree with you. If I erred on MOH date, I was thinking he received MoH for Phillipines- context, before Doolittle. I didn't insert '," beween MOH and (separately) those for WWI.
@drgondog Ah, I gotcha. Yes, that's correct. MacArthur's MOH was awarded 1 April 1942...before Doolittle entered the picture. I don't know if April Fools Day was much of a thing back then, but perhaps it was a backhanded knock by those awarding it to him. We may never know.
I think way too much is made by people attempting to find conflict between MacArthur and other leaders. For example, I don't think he really had problems with Nimitz. General MacArthur recounted in his memoirs that in 1944, when he was recalled to Hawaii, he was not made aware of the fact that the purpose of the recall was to meet with and brief the President in a conference on the future course of the war. He pointed out that when Admiral Nimitz found this out, Nimitz donated the use of his staff and headquarters to allow MacArthur to prepare for his briefing despite knowing that MacArthur would likely be proposing a different plan to end the war to that Nimitz was going to brief. Which he did. The fact that Nimitz did this and that MacArthur recounted it shows that these two men had respect for each other as true professionals should.
The only real complaint MacArthur had was that there was never any unity of command and unity of effort in the Pacific war. To this end, he voiced to FDR that he was willing to subordinate himself to Nimitz if necessary. That's not really the thoughts of an egomaniac. Unfortunately, or perhaps even fortunately, neither Admiral King or General Marshall was going to allow one of their major theatre commanders to be subordinates to another service. Such is war!
You two are making some great points.
LMAO the Peter-47 picture at 8:30
That's actually an interesting read.
A cool transfer system would be to tap air pressure off the turbo charger discharge run through a small regulator if necessary. Use the air to pressurize the drop tank(s). Route transfer fuel from the drop tank(s) to the internal fuel supply through a float valve. All the line connections from drop tank to aircraft would be through self sealing valves that would close once the lines were pulled away. This would add some complexity adding a transfer system, but simplify fuel feed to the engine.
Man, the guys on a certain WW2 aviation website are going to be going into vapor lock....
Thanks for the excellent video and research
I don't understand why McArthur is so highly regarded today.
Not that hard to understand. At the beginning of the war he received an MOH for the defense of the Philippines in what could only be a purely propaganda move. He was talked up as some god figure by the media for another decade. There was virtually no critical writings on the man for decades after the war. People read books by fawning "historians" and believe them as gospel. And none of that takes into account just how much effort the man himself went to to portray himself as much more than he actually was. I mean he literally refused to even talk to any reporter or media that didn't fawn over him. He did that right up to the end of his life. A good general yes, possibly one of our best. As good as portrayed?, Not F'n hardly.
Is he really? I don't think so.
Yeah while he was a household name and a war hero in the 1940s and 50s I think his reputation ever since has been as the guy Harry Truman fired for wanting to nuke China. Most people with limited understanding of WWII don't know who he was and most people with a good understanding of the topic know he was an egomaniac.
Is he?
McArthur was a good strategist. While he was initially asleep at the switch during the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, his subsequent fighting withdrawal to the Bataan Peninsula generally receives high marks. He continually confounded the Japanese in New Guinea, bypassing and isolating their strongholds. Similarly his bypassing of Mindanao and going directly to Leyte in the Philippines. His invasion of Incheon brought about the collapse of North Korean forces during the Korean War. Unfortunately, he failed to anticipate the subsequent intervention by the Chinese. Not saying he wasn't a narcissist who was full of himself, just that he was on occasion a good general.
Excellent analysis as always Greg, thank you!
Greg I love the fact that you a/ pronounce Brisbane correctly and b/ added an AC/DC reference re the Thunderbolt!!
Thanks, I am trying, and I wasn't sure anyone would get that reference. It pleases me that a few have :)
😂 Sensitive aussies and their pronouns iation.
Kinda odd that there’s not an AC/DC song called “thunderbolt”?!
post war in australia we had childrens petrol driven merry go round with the tanks being modified to carry children and they lasted to the early 70s
I'm of the opinion that McArthur was afraid of having an actual hero in his chain of command, taking him, McArthur out of the spotlight. Your opinion of McArthur may be different, but I guarantee that it will be WAY lower than his opinion of himself.
Please reference the lengthy comment I posted on this very topic yesterday. Unfortunately, I think you are peddling more anti-MacArthur propaganda, whether you know it or not. Hopefully, my post will shed light on a different viewpoint for you to consider. Thanks.
After reading Patton's opinion of him after working for him I definitely agree.
Good video, lots of info.Towards the beginning of the video there is a photo of the Brisbane tank built by Ausie Ford that shows the access port toward the front open. It is a round hole and it is secured by 4 blots. That port is large enough to get a good sized fuel pump into the tank plus a float for the fuel level indicator. My guess is that they had an internal fuel pump in the tank and not an external one fitted to bump up the fuel pressure to prevent vapor lock. That seems to me to be the best way to go. Thanks for the excellent explanation.
I tend to think Douglas MacArthur avoided the bomber mafia because he was a member of the group of officers who court-martialed Billy Mitchell. Not only did the mafia members dislike him for it, but Mitchell had been a friend from MacArthur's childhood, and MacArthur was very conflicted by the decision. He was thought to have voted against the decision, but that cannot be proven. He dealt with the that conflict by avoidance. He chose an outsider because Doolittle was one of those who held him responsible for the court -martial.
Excellent point. McArthur didn’t seem to respect the WW1 soldiers who went to Washington to ask for money they deserved.
I would certainly agree with that! His actions during the protests definitely marred his reputation. He has a very mixed reputation overall, I'd say.
The fact that Dolittle was famous to the public virtually guaranteed that MacArthur would pick Kinney.
Re your reference to the loss of 27 P-51s on 6/1/45: fuel shortage had no bearing on this; Mustangs escorting B-29s on mission to Osaka attempted to punch through a solid weather front, encountered severe thunderheads and were flying blind in extreme turbulence; some were lost in mid-air collisions and others forced down by winds.
"some"
Greg, it would be a fascinating study into the p47 thunderbolt ETO history to detail legendary US fighter pilot George Preddy whose initial combat experience was in my country of Australia flying p40 Kittyhawks over Darwin against the Japanese mid 1942. After returning home he transferred to RAF Bodney (England) flying missions in p47D thunderbolts from September 1943 apparently seeing minimal combat ( probably due to lack of drop tanks), until Dec 1943 when he achieved 3 aerial victories prior to being shot down by flak Jan 1944 into English Channel/North Sea . Seems to then have a blank sheet until his group transitioned to P51B IN APRIL 1943 then extraordinary success for next 5 months. I have been unable to establish reason for the apparent gap just as GEN. DOOLITTLE decreed that shooting down Luftwaffe was the top priority.
German translation is fine. Position 24 is a valve to prevent overpressure but how it worksin the end, its equal to a pressure regulator.
A great interesting and informative video.
I've followed Greg's unique analysis of the P47 and the debate on range in several of his videos...To me the scary implications of this discussion is the experience of American bomber crews over Europe who might have fought and died unnecessarily by reason of the lack of leadership will to equip the Thunderbolt for long range escort duties
Hap Arnold only ever came back with his own drink after going to the bar..
~laughs~
Is it possible that General MacArthur did not choose General Dolittle because Dolittle was popular with US newspapers. MacArthur made every effort to grab all the headlines for himself.
Mac would never in a thousand years allow Doolittle to run 5th Air Force. MacArthur first criteria in his staff was blind loyalty to MacArthur and the second was never outshine MacArthur. Doolittle would have broken both within a week.
Kenny was a very fortunate pick, able to get along with MacArthur and run his show well.
Please reference the lengthy comment I posted on this very topic yesterday. Unfortunately, I think you are peddling more anti-MacArthur propaganda, whether you know it or not. Hopefully, my post will shed light on a different viewpoint for you to consider. Thanks.
@@clarkenoble The appointment of Kenny was fortunate all around. Kenny and Doolittle were perfect fits for 5th and 8th air force respectively.
MacArthur even with his ego was famously able to populate his staff with very competent people.
I wish you luck, being a MacArthur fan these days can be lonely.
@gerennichols6075 Ha! Thanks. It does seem rather lonely sometimes.
You are correct. If you look at the military careers of many notable figures, their success or failure was often related to personality issues. On a related note... Often, an officer was fired by his superior simply because they didn't get along. He would go work somewhere else, and there he would thrive and become famously successful. Being fired wasn't necessarily seen as a death sentence careerwise in those days like it often is now in the military.
Have a great day!
I think they should ship f 35s partially assembled so they can be put together in the jungle
Thnk you Greg, another masterpiece of facts and insights. I choked on my coffee when I heard that liquid cooled radial . Can't think of anything that could go wrong with a double negative engine concept to begin with 😂
G'day Greg,
Great stuff mate !
The only
"Fly in the Ointment" is that there is no
"S" in the
Appellation,
"Eagle Farm Airfield"...
As far as I can recall, it used to be a Sheepfarm with a
Problem involving
Lambing Mortality and because
Eagles eat
Carcasses...; the
Sheep & Potato Brigade
Reflexively blamed the
Eagles,
And then promptly
Poisoned & shot
The lot.
Not a big mistake, but it does
Ring
Wrong...;
To the ear of a
Local Yokel.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
OMG! Your attention to techcnical and mathematical detail is mind boggling. But on another matter you surpass even that level of expertise. You are the only American I have ever heard correctly pronounce the name "Brisbane". That is, the way we do. Onya mate🍺
I can give you another reason why MacArthur chose Kenny over Doolitle.
Its BECAUSE Kenny was not famous, and Doolittle most assuredly was. MacArthur was a raging egoist, there is absolutely no way he would put up with one of his direct subordinates being as, or nearly as famous as he was.
I am aware that is a rather less than flattering assessment, but its likely also a truer one. MacArthur had his strengths, but he also had his glaring faults.
Fortunately for 5th Airforce Kenny turned out to be the perfect man for the job... but thats a different matter.
Excellent episode as usual!
McArthur didn’t want to work around anyone who would steal his limelight - which Doolittle would. See Eichelberger.
Wait what my home town…and why Kenny there is on enough space in any room for one MacArthur sized Ego
Sorry Greg, don't know if I misunderstand your comments@ 3,00 minutes re "General Kenney needed fighter planes, wanted P38 Lightnings, we're up to March 1943." I assume you mean he wanted MORE P 38's as Richard Bong and Tommy Lynch were demonstrating the capability of the Lightnings over Buna back in Dec. 1942. Thanks heaps for the quality of your productions.
Yes, he wanted more P-38s, but so did everyone else.
New book South Pacific Air War by Richard L. Dunn covers operations in great depth. Excellent resource to document units chronological operations.
Folks,
I find it very interesting that the comment section of a video about P-47 drop tanks has given so many people the opportunity to vent their disdain for General MacArthur. Its interesting considering I doubt that, very seriously, anyone here actually knows anything about the man other than what they heard someone say or perhaps something they casually read somewhere. This is evidenced by how the language used in these comments is so identical. When so many people utter the exact same lines about someone for so long, it raises my spidy senses. It's much like our mainstream media today. Just talking points to build a narrative in people's minds. Does anyone actually think for themselves?
I think Greg very adequately identified two reasons why Kenney was picked over Doolittle. I would like to add a couple more reasons based on my own research, as well as my own military experience.
During the interwar period, General MacArthur, as the Army Chief, most likely knew of Kenney's service and contributions to the planning of War Plan Orange. However, he also knew that Kenney possessed combat experience. Combat experience was, and still is, a huge consideration when discussing assignments or promotions in the military. When I say combat "experience," I am referring to being a part of military operations on a large scale for a prolonged period of time. Kenney had that from WWI. This would've given him practical knowledge of not only combat operations but the ever important logistical support operations. Logistics would be vitally important in a far flung theater like the SWPA. Doolittle's only combat experience prior to this was basically as a heroic flight commander of the Doolittle Raid, an operation that was planned and supported at the highest levels in the Army Air Force and Washington DC. That's not the type of experience that holds weight for long.
Let's also remember that during the interwar period, Doolittle was a reserve officer while Kenney remained on active duty. This is how Doolittle was able to participate in so many aviation exploits as well as be heavily involved in Shell Oil. It also means that, while he was a very accomplished flyer, at the beginning of WWII, he was relatively junior in both rank and in actual military experience to Kenney. Kenney was promoted to Major General on 26 March 1942. At the time of the Doolittle Raid in April of 1942, Doolittle was still a Lieutenant Colonel and would subsequently be promoted two grades to Brigadier General, skipping Colonel. Too often, the military promotes officers beyond their capacity. This is a potential risk that General MacArthur had to consider. Was it worth the risk?
Next, during the summer of 1940, Kenney was part of a Military Attache that traveled to France and witnessed the German invasion. Therefore, he had the most recent view of what modern air power was capable of and wrote a report about the experience that ruffled a few feathers. Perhaps some bomber mafia feather? Again, perhaps General MacArthur knew what he was doing?
Finally, I'd also like to point out that it seems General MacArthur liked to work with older people. The choice between Kenney and Doolittle is one example. There's also General Walter Krueger, MacArthur's best commander during the war who thought his career was practically over due to his seniroty. He had actually fought as an enlisted soldier in the Philippines under Arthur MacArthur. He was also commissioned as an officer two years prior to MacArthur in 1901. During the interwar period, Krueger was Chief of the War Plans Division. Interestingly, when Eisenhower left the Philippines in 1939, he served under Krueger for a short period of time before Krueger was assigned to MacArthur in the SWPA.
Anyway, as an amateur student of General MacArthur, I must admit a bit of bias and an affinity towards him. I believe he is very misunderstood, even by those closest to him. I also believe there's been far too many histories written about him that I would liken more to being "hit pieces" (I'm looking at you William Manchester) that contain large amounts of information that I would classify as questionable at best and blatantly false at worst. Was he perfect? No! Far from it. However, to say that I believe there is a contingent of people with an agenda against the man would be an understatement. It rises above fair criticism and often verges malicious. There are few generals that seem to garner the level of smear that General MacArthur does even after he's been dead and gone for 60 years. I believe once we delve deeper, it's usually politically or ideologically motivated. At least in the final summation, William Manchester had to admit he was the greatest general this nation had produced. His words, not mine.
And just for the record, I don't hold it against him that he was awarded the Medal of Honor for losing in the Philippines. He was nominated by General Marshall, who I'm sure many of you love and respect, it was approved by Congress and "awarded" by FDR, although there was no formal ceremony since MacArthur would not set foot on US soil again until 1951. And no, you can't "politely turn down" an award that was the result of a special act of Congress and the President of the United States. Yes, they were likely playing politics, pure and simple. It made for a positive headline at a time the war was going terribly, just like the Doolittle Raid. Yet MacArthur receives the wrath for their actions? At least he was nominated for the MOH twice before that in Vera Cruz and in WWI. Perhaps it just made up for someone's previous oversight. Not ironically, I personally have little good to say about FDR, but he seems to garner the love and admiration of generations to this day. Of course, if you actually know anything about FDR, Churchill and the key decisions they made in 1940/41 that led to December 7th, 1941, you might also take a kinder view of Admiral Kimmel and General Short and understand why they were scapegoats.
Finally, I'd like to add that people will often quote Eisenhower. When asked if he knew General MacArthur, he quipped, "I studied theatrics under him!" Personally, as a former officer, I find that quite funny, but I dont assume it to be derogatory towards MacArthur. That's just good humor, and MacArthur certainly carried himself in a way that apparently annoyed others. This was an era when general officers were still allowed to modify their own uniform to stand apart from the crowd! Eisenhower worked for General MacArthur as an aide from 1932 to 1939. There's a lot written regarding their supposed antipathy, but it's very rare that an officer will remain posted to such an assignment for so long. If he wanted to be reassigned, he could have likely gotten it done at any point in 1935 before he followed MacArthur to the Phillipines. Basically, I think this is an example of mountains being made of mole hills.
Anyway, I've said my piece. I'm looking forward to hearing what Greg has to say about General Kenney! Have a nice day!
I enjoyed this post. I have a lot to say about General Kenny in the next video, which premiers in about 90 mins.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks! Can't wait!
@~11:00, I took just enough Deutsch lessons to be almost dangerous. You got it right.
great video.
Just to steel man the other side: These thuds went long ways, but most of it was low risk as long as they flew high over the Ki61s. In ETO the whole distance to and from would in theory be attacked by high-altitude German fighters
This seems to be the new argument. When the other side has to totally change their argument, you know you've won. This new argument is as false as the previous tank pressurization argument.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles thanks - your video make very strong case. Again trying to 'Steel man" the opposite side.
Great point about the YB40 too -
Thunderbolts and mustangs were both good high altitude long range aircraft. The mustang was fare to delicate to fly at low altitude near ground fire and cosmically won the day . The tuf bruiser verses the pretty race horse
Have you thought about doing a review on the F-7 Tigercat? I think it fought in Korea.
Yes, I'll fit it into my super prop series at some point.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thank you, sir.
A wonderful account of the pre and post Philippines attack is The Story of Pappy Gunn, Hero of the Southwest Pacific by Sam McGowan. A lot of the material here is detailed.
General Kenney also wrote "The Saga of Pappy Gunn", which is currently in queue to be added to my library.
As a man from brisbane, good to know
I’ve only heard that it was the USAA’s fault for the lack of drop tanks. That drop tanks were available from day one. But the leadership had some odd aversion to them. I’ve never heard of people blaming the planes themselves.
I'm not sure if you already have, but it would probably be helpful to do a video specifically on the motivations of the bomber mafia. If the drop tank analysis is correct you're then left with the question (which was asked in the debate) [why would the bomber mafia do this when they had the whole 9th airforce and the future of the airforce riding on the preference]. As it is, my take away is that [they like bombers], more akin to a child with a toy rather than a more complicated backstory which is likey to be the case. It would be interesting to see an analysis of political, financial, prestige ramifications of a 9th airforce's leadership decision to implement these tanks earlier.
I could easily do that, and I just might. They had a number of reasons for believing in what they did.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles sorry I don't know why I said 9th, I meant 8th. I appreciate you considering the idea! Love your channel.
I'd also like to see more of your automotive content. I think you could make an interesting analysis of automotive intercooling, with a bonus twist of using air conditioning to actively cool air:water intercooling!
Thanks.
Great video!
Jeez, if they'd transfer kenney to the infantry, how can you doubt they'd suppress their part in preventing drop tanks from deployment.
Good point.
The three Drops: Dropped video. Drop tanks. Drop my caboose on the couch and press play ▶ 🐿
How can you NOT like this:??
There are some who can't handle the truth.
Well argued Greg! I’m a convert.
Pilot legend Eric "Winkle" Brown made the point that German fighters was better at very high altitudes and could do higher mach number (0.75) versus P38/P47's (0.7 ) And then the Merlin engined Mustang came to the scene with 0.78. He was explaining the "compression" (?) phenomenon making planes experiencing transonic buffeting (?)
Seen on Dronescapes RUclips channel 😊
Let's say he is right, that still has nothing to do with the P-47s not having enough range to escort the fighters deep into Germany in 1943. The excuse that's always given is centered around the P-47's range not Mach limits. Now one could argue that the P-51 was a better choice once it was available, and maybe Mach limits are a part of that decision, but it in no way exonerates the Bomber Mafia of it's sins. On the subject of Brown's points on Mach, I offer my view on that here: ruclips.net/video/TWr50TP0CWc/видео.htmlsi=YzemloLfLBmg1PQG
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles i agree with you, i didn't mean to make a point i just though his comment was interesting when viewing that old interview 👍
G:
Maybe you covered this already... Im terribly curious about the connections and linkage of drop tanks. Obviously there will be a "dangling fuel line" after cutting one loose.
And then, to improvise such in a non aviation factory in Australia...
They probably called it a 200 gallon tank because it was 200 imperial gallons. No one outside the US ever used US gallons.
No, 200 Imperial gallons would be 240 US. Also the 75 gallon US tank was actually 83 US gallons. The names of the tanks were just a bit nominal.
200 Imperial would be 240 US.
When the discussion returns to the hypotheticals of P-47Cs and early Ds with drop tanks in the ETO in 1943, here's an issue I hope you can address: German fighter tactics aimed at minimizing escort range. (I know one objection to this scenario is that in fact German fighters mainly concentrated on the bombers, but let's suppose.) In this scenario, the Germans intercept those P-47s as soon as possible to make them jettison drop tanks, in order to cut their combat radius. I haven't looked at the math except for mileage on the map, but say P-47s from Boxted are escorting bombers to Schweinfurt, and get jumped as they cross over the coast into Holland, about 110 miles out, or even out over the North Sea. There's still at least 730 miles to go to the target area and home. How does this affect your calculation for combat radius based on internal fuel?
It is a good point, but not much changes between a Mustang and a Thunderbolt in that case, as none of them will make it to Schweinfurt (or elsewhere) if right after getting to the mainland they drop tanks and immediately engage in combat for some time (which means military power/WEP for an extended time). What they did in this case, as far as I know, is having several escort groups taking turns, luckily for them, the 8th had enough planes to do this. It also helped with a different issue, which was that fighters cruised faster than bombers, so they had to zigzag to not pass the bombers and wasted fuel this way.
Just one small detail in your post , the C’s and early D’s would have been from Halesworth rather than Boxted .
Good point though 👍🏻
I'm sure a good point, but would Germany have advance notice sufficient to get interceptors in the air? Was it based on observers or radar? Also, I'm not sure they'd know the destination. I recall the actual raid involved a bit of subterfuge, heading to one obvious target but then continuing to another. Or maybe your point is simply that any bomber formation would be sure to have interceptors who in turn would be sure to depend on drop tanks? OK, one other idea is that if this was actually happening on a regular basis, perhaps the Allies would task more escorts such that some could peel off immediately to fight while others stay tanked up?
If the point of the German tactic was to induce the US fighters to jettison drop tanks at soon as possible, then they might just as well try to avoid combat.
Alex, you mention a couple things germane to the range requirement: zigzagging to keep pace with the slower bombers (on top of this, the bombers following a dogleg course to mislead the Germans as to the target). Both add miles to the mission. Also escorts covering the bombers in shifts (which lets the fighters covering the bombers over the target take the direct route). I guess the worst case is fighters having to provide escort on the legs into and out of the target area when the bombers' course goes far wide of the target, and there were definitely bomber missions planned that way.
@@Bellerophonmodeler Clostermann in "The Big Show" describes situations where fighters escorting "fighter-bombers'" lost contact in bad weather & didn't find them, or shifts of bomber escorts couldn't find the changeover rendezvous point for the same reason.
Greg, the way you your build your argument, you should have been an Attorney.
Great info!
Vanity mc,arthuer would never share the spotlight with a more famous person than himself and doolitle was that threat
I suspect the Brisbane Tank could have been dubbed the Geelong Tank. The Ford Australia Factory was based in Geelong (pronounced G Long) in Victoria and the RAAF Laverton and Point Cook airfields was not far away so I i imagine some flight trials could have happened there. Much of this is probably lost to history but would be interesting if anyone knew.
Sadly not much was written down about drop tanks. That makes sense, they are in a technical sense pretty simple, mundane and boring. The fact that they were of so little value that they were almost disposable meant that people just didn't think of them as future historical artifacts. Heck they didn't really think that about the planes at the time. So yes, a lot of the details are lost to history, but the big picture stuff we do have, fuel quantities, ranges, altitude capability and so on.
I love P-47s but every time a picture comes up of one I have admit they are very tubby looking.
Many young bomber crews in their 20s or even younger must have died because of the stupidity of their generals who thought fighter escort was not necessary. The drop tank story is a really sad lesson...
Another stupid thing that USA leadership that killed thousands was the US Torpedo was inoperable for first two years of the war
It still blows my mind that the P-47 wasn't an INSTANTLY obvious choice to escort the bombers, it was groundbreaking as a heavy single-engined aircraft with a turbosupercharger. That last part should have stood out to everyone that "this is our high-altitude solution for escorting."
I was going to say "the only" or "groundbreaking as a whole" but I tend to forget that the P-38 first flew in 1939 with twin turbosupercharged engines. I believe it also had a significantly greater range as well. You've probably covered this many times, but WHY wasn't the P-38 just thrown into mass production as a game-changer-type aircraft like the B-29? I realize it was expensive, but let's be honest - so was the P-47, at least compared to conventional fighters.
They didn't do it because an escort fighter was not a priority.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Were ANY twin-engine fighters effective against single-engine fighters? I think I've heard that half the planes shot down in WWII never saw their attacker, so I'm sure P-38s could catch 109s and 190s unawares and down a lot, but the reverse is probably also true. Once they spotted each other what were the realistic odds? How do they compare in the best simulation games?
@@lqr824 The P-38 was the rare case of a two engine WWII fighter that could take on a single engine fighter with reasonable odds. Robin Olds considered it superior to the single engine German fighters he was flying against. It had speed, a good climb rate and a turn rate approaching that of a P-51. Its biggest handicaps were a poor roll rate due to having two engines located out on the wings a long way from the CG, and compressibility issues that rendered it unable to follow a German fighter through a split S at high altitude. The first issue was eventually dealt with by Kelly Johnson and Lockheed when they introduced the first hydraulically boosted ailerons, the second by introduction of the dive flap.
P38s were not very successful against single-engined fighters until pilots adopted different tactics. Me 210s never did well, so there was that example as well.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yes, even the RAF thought bombers could "go it alone" & got mauled until they went to night bombing. Spits unfortunately lacked the range to escort them for more than half the way, so even when they tried escorts, it didn't work well.
Out of interest, Chris from Military Aviation History channel mentioned in one of his videos of the 2-1 kill ration of P-47's V Ki-43's in New Guinea. Thats surprisingly low.
I find it very difficult to figure out the actual kill ratios in the Pacific Theater. I'm not sure I have seen the video you're talking about, but I am a big fan of Chris.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I liked his early style where he just launched into a topic like you always have. The last year or so he seems to have read a book on how to make slick videos where he spends four minutes explaining what the title of the video is and why you might want to watch it. I should check his channel and see what's new though.