German Cannons, Soviet Cannons, P-47 Mach, Angry Authors and More
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 окт 2023
- In this video I address various questions and comments that frequently come up on this channel. I'll also do a tour of all the key D-Day locations on the DCS Normandy map with a few dogfights worked in.
The topics are the German cannon and Mine shells, P-47 Mach limits and why Eric Brown's data varies so much from EVERYONE else who tested the plane, P-47 range issue and the rage of some authors, Soviet cannons, and some thoughts about Soviet aircraft performance in general.
It's a long video, I hope you like it.
Please support this channel:
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
Edit, Some German cannons COULD fire both mine and conventional shells. It's the MG FF that couldn't. This cannon had to be built to fire one or the other. Thanks to Sheriff at Sheriff's Sim Shack for that clarification. 
Авто/Мото
Anyone who has followed this incredible channel for for longer than 5 minutes knows Gregg is the epitomy of honesty and intelligence ... keep it up mate and to hell with the haters.😊
Thanks.
100%
As for his aeroplane content ,I've been enjoying it for a lot longer than 5 minutes, more like 20 minutes, I'm a new subscriber and I have been watching his muscle car videos ,and as a lifelong fan of fighter planes this channel suits me perfectly (if it also included vintage dirt bikes that would be awsome ) .
It's going to be good to watch all his prior plane videos. My father served in the RNZAF in WW2 in the Pacific ,as a side gunner in Catalina's, and sometimes in Mitchell bombers .As a kid I enjoyed his recollections of seeing P38's , Kittyhawks, Corsairs, Airacobra's etc .Luckily for him ,he was not involved in any combat ,the enemy never reached where he was stationed, that would have changed though if Midway didn't turn out like it did. Also I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the recent passing of Sir Tim Wallis , the New Zealand Warbirds collector and founder of " Warbirds over Wanaka ", RIP Tim.
Greg is the muthufuckin man. I’d trust this guy with my life. He’s that ethical, honest, and thorough. His exposure of the bomber mafia and the great lie they perpetuated was a masterful piece of detective work. He would have made a terrific judge, lawyer, or police detective.
Yeah this channel is so well done and researched.. one of my favorites… but the real reason I came here was to laugh at the cringy , almost creepy comments you guys leave. You didn’t disappoint. Good grief you guys are cringe , like that one by Caleb 😂
The Combat record of the P-47 and P-38 demonstrate that they were far from useless.
On the cockpit ergonomics, flying the F6F in MSFS was a real revelation. The plane just wants to fly and at cruise speeds is really easy to fly hands off. It struck me, given the long flight times and strict navigation requirements, a plane that is easy to cruise would have a real practical advantage over aircraft that had higher performance, but would exhaust the pilots during ingress and egress.
And that is likely a big contributor to why it's reputation seems higher than its raw performance numbers would imply.
Jimmy Doolittle was also an accomplished engineer. He even held a Doctorate in Aerospace Engineering. Doolittle was the first to do an IFR takeoff and landing, the first to do an outside loop, famous air racer, and helped standardize high octane fuel in the US, among many other accomplishments. He did not need Eric Browns help nor the British help in general. If he needed help, he had access to NACA and the aircraft manufacturers.
I agree.
I have no problem whatsoever calling Eric Brown a liar, absolutely none, especially when the subject he'd be talking about had ANYTHING to do with America, in that regard that man lied so much he forgot what the truth was, I quit watching interviews with him after watching one where he claimed to have first hand knowledge that in the 50's the US secretly assembled and flew that piece of junk Horten flying wing, he made up that lie just so he could say "And it's a shame that it wasn't flown by a 'proper' test pilot because the opportunity to learn so much from it was lost".
What a bunch of crap, it's very well known that nobody in the US ever flew that hot mess, no test pilot in the world would even attempt to fly that death trap, the workmanship in it isn't anywhere near aircraft grade from them changing things as it was being built making them cut things apart and having to be rewelded, people who know what they're looking at have said there's not a test pilot worth their salt would approve that thing to fly after looking at it.
Other lies Brown has told as a way of poking America in the eye was his nonsense claim that he saw Adolf Hitler shake Jessie Owens' hand at the 36 Olympics, the entire world knows that Adolf Hitler got up and walked out of the 36 Olympics because Owens embarrassed his master race nonsense, and anyone that believes Adolf Hitler would have shook a black man's hand is delusional, the reason Brown made that lie up about supposedly seeing Hitler shake his hand in secret is because he knows it's an embarrassing thing for America that FDR didn't invite Owens to the White House like all other gold metal athletes, so he figured he'd say Hitler shook his hand just to make 1936 America look even worse.
I don't think I ever watched a single interview of his where he didn't tell some kind of a lie about America in it, so yea, I have no problem calling him a liar whatsoever.
He's also the only reason high-octane aviation fuel was available in large amounts when it was needed. He pressed Shell into developing the process for making 100 octane fuel when the "experts" said there was no need for the much more expensive process.
Other videos, I have heard nothing but praise for severely wings strength, also any type of report would have needed to be forwarded to NACA Langley to evaluate and update Wright field to place in those manuals.
@@TheAneewAony
He preferred it because of it's low fuel consumption, he had to gas up thousands of bombers and fighter's, and wherein fuel never really was a supply issue Jimmy Doolittle wasn't psychic, he couldn't see into the future and tell there wasn't going to be some kind of surprise German U-boat campaign that would seriously cut down on the supply of high octane fuel from America, P38's had the range to escort bombers anywhere they went but they had two of the same engine that the P51 had, you don't have to have a PHD in in mathematics to know what that means, the P47, well using it for escort was about the same as taking a drag car on a cross country vacation as far as fuel consumption goes.
When Doolittle took command of the 8th Air Force in January of 44 victory in Europe in just over a year certainly wasn't a given, one of his considerations was stretching out fuel as much as he could, he was a smart guy and only a dummy wouldn't think about that, he did the math, he knew how many more P51's he could put in the sky with a given amount of fuel than he could with other fighter's he had at his disposal.
You're such a natural speaker, able to switch from aviation nerd to tour guide instantly.(-:
Thanks.
Hi Greg,
My flight instructor was a P38 pilot/ace in the Mediterranean. Before he was sent out there, while he was based in England they had him fly an early P-47 to have him give his ideas on how they would use the jug in the air. On this flight after he had climbed to high altitude during his testing, he split essed from up high to RTB.. In the dive he did not recover in time to avoid compressibility, he almost didn't recover.
And in the recovery due to the speed and G load he placed on this jug. He rejected the airframe. The wings had an extra 4 degrees of dihedral, rivets were popped, fairings and antenna had been ripped from the plane. Andy Rooney wrote of this in stars and stripes.
Look up Col.Herb Ross.
That's interesting especially since it was the p38 that was known for compressibility problems..
@@kenneth9874 as i said, he rejected the jug BEFORE he was sent to fly 38's in the Med.
@@topmenace funny how the arguably best American fighter group retained the p47 until the of the war.....and the 8th wasn't the only American air force in Europe. The p51 didn't even show up in numbers until post d day and after the cream of the luftwaffe had been taken out. The need then was tor front line support and interdiction at which the P47's were vastly superior .
Sounds like pilot error....
Re: "mine shells," I'm still not convinced that the German mine shells were specifically an anti-Soviet technology, for three reasons. First and foremost is the question of timing. It's not just that the Luftwaffe introduced these shells in 1940, it's that they had to be designed and put into production at some point before they were introduced into service - and until about mid-1940, armor in aircraft was virtually unheard of. So at the time these explosives-heavy shells (and the guns to fire them) were being developed, the Luftwaffe expectation would have been that they'd be as effective against the thin aluminum of Western Allied tactical aircraft in 1940 as they would be against the thin aluminum of four-engine heavy bombers in 1943. Second, it should be kept in mind that the Luftwaffe (along with the rest of the Wehrmacht, and everyone else in Germany, and most other people around the world) only expected Operation Barbarossa to take six weeks, or eight at most, before the USSR was forced to capitulate just as France had been. Changing over the primary armament of the entire fighter force to a new gun with new, incompatible ammunition, just to secure a marginal advantage in a campaign that was expected to last well under three months sounds like too much of a logistical nightmare even for Nazi Germany. Third and finally, the one air force that _was_ developing a tactical aircraft that was designed from the ground up to carry significant armor was the USSR with the Il-2, as you've previously discussed. It's possible that the Luftwaffe didn't know anything about this aircraft, which would still have been in the prototype stage (on the one hand, the Heer has plenty of reports of German tankers being unpleasantly surprised by T-34s and KV-1s; on the other hand, Germany and the USSR were more-or-less allied at the time and AFAIK there was a significant amount of spying going on between them), but in any case it would be deeply ironic if the Germans developed a specialty armament for their fighters just to counter wooden aircraft, only to meet Il-2s in the skies.
Re: Eric Brown, I mostly disregard anything he said that can't be corroborated elsewhere - just as I do anything else in any other memoir that can't be corroborated. At best, it's important to remember that his opinions are just that: _his opinions._ And in the case of his post-war books, and especially his interviews, the simple fact of time's passage means his recollections (as with anyone's) cannot be trusted. (This isn't to say that memoirs have no value as history - they can be very good, even irreplaceable, for capturing the "feel" of events, the mood among participants. But as sources of objective historical fact, they are at best limited to what the diarist can piece together from a combination of notes made at the time they're writing about, and unreliable memory filling in the gaps in those notes.) And that's the best case, working on the assumption that Brown was doing his best to be a perfect paragon of unbiased objectivity, rather than being a major pro-British chauvinist - the latter of which appears to be a more accurate characterization.
I believe the Germans did not expect to take on the Soviets until the war was concluded on the western front.
That is an interesting thought on the mine shells. On the one hand the Nazi’s were planning on going east all along so designing shells to take out soviet aircraft long before the actual assault makes sense. On the gripping hand they did assume it would be a very short war so why bother as you mentioned. The only reason I can think of would be that it would be to aide in the first massive strike and that they would end the war faster than using the conventional shells. However your point regarding the Allies aircraft grade aluminum sheeting is well taken so my ultimate guess would be that there were multiple reasons for their development and implementation.
Yeah, exactly. And actually before protected tanks came biggest treat for planes under fire was well - fire. Planes was really easily catching fire - that is why self-sealing tanks and inert gas systems was really big deal. And hing explosive shells perfect to do that damage.
Big H always intended to go east, looong before the war actually kicked of. His book (avoiding the names for youtube reasons) said as much in the 20s. As to expecting a fast war with the USSR, Germany didn't expect a fast war until France collapsed as fast as it did. Most of their generals at the time said that what happened in France was a fluke, they got lucky, and it shouldn't have happened, and then they learned the wrong lessons, and charged straight at Moscow despite big H's preference to pursue the Caucus oil fields. Yeah, Germany did some espionage, but they were one of the worst at it of the WWII players, and during their friendly times with USSR, Russia's air force would have been even more heavily wood-based. So absolutely think Greg's reasoning here is sound.
Il-2 was mostly made of wood, it had armored "bathtub" only for engine and pilot. MiG-3 had similar ratio of metal and wooden surfaces. But in late 30's soviet airforce was mostly aluminium. Not fighters of course, but bombers like SB-2 and later Pe-2 and Yer-2 were all aluminium. On the other hand, Germans clashed with Soviet planes in Spain way before WW2.
I think Germans developed minengeschoß with no specific reason, they just thought it was more effective anti-aircraft ammo overall.
Interesting. As far as Jimmy Doolittle desperately needing British help on Aerodynamics calculations and testing, the man had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT. He was a world renowned and innovative test pilot. Its bit of a stretch to see him going hat in hand pleading for help from the British on matters he was arguably the worlds foremost expert on.
Exactly, that's why I think the version of the story from Eric Brown is a bit different from reality.
Eric Brown was a shameless self promoter.
The claims that the Army Air Corps/Force required the assistance of the British to evaluate aircraft is absolute nonsense. Note that you only hear that from some twit claiming that the Spitfire is the only competent piston/prop fighter of the war.
Doolittle wrote the MIT text book on aero
When an order comes down from a very high level, every layer of command has an opportunity to help their boss looks good and tend to make the most of it, so you get a strange form of the "telephone" game. I think Greg has the right of it here. Doolittle says he'd love to see the numbers => Hey, the famous American guy is interested in our numbers go get them => Gen Doolittle says he needs our help! => ... => It is urgent that we do our utmost to save the Americans by providing them with this data!
This is a very normal thing in a chain of command (especially a military one) and it's not even a bad thing, as it motivates people to deliver. But while in the USAF, many times been told I was "red-balling" some urgent thing for some important officer only to find that it was a routine request, just one that originated from a high place.
@@chs76945Agreed.
I'm one of the people who brought up Eric Brown's comment regarding the use of P-51s for high altitude bomber escort due to mach number. It wasn't a criticism, The anecdote just came to mind while you were talking on the subject and I didn't see any mention of it after a quick look in the comment section. I completely agree with your interpretation. He was clearly mistaken as I think he says that the US changed exclusively to P-51s for that role after his report, but that was not the case. He was a great pilot and ambassador but nobody is perfect and he would have been focussed on other things at that time.
I didn't take it as a criticism, but so many brought it up I had to talk about it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles In my defence, I think I saw your video early in its lifetime!!! And I'm glad you did talk about it again because I enjoy watching your WW2 aviation videos as well as your DCS escapades.
Let it go Gregg, Most subscribers love what you are doing and applicate the time and lengths you go to to give the facts to the best of your available knowledge , I would say it is impossible to avoid the type of people who like nothing better than to criticise . keep up the good work and keep doing what you are have been up to now and work on a percentage basis , if 99.9 % are liking you content then you cannot be going far wrong .👌
I agree, let it go. I'm not saying I could but you should :). You always express your opinion and then the facts you used to arrive there and that's enough.
no need to let anything go if it means we get a 90 minute video out of it haha
Truth Fred! But I agree with the others. Greg’s content is unmatched. Keep up the great work man!
I refer all of you over to the classic Monty Python sketch, "The Argument Clinic"
🤣🤣🤣⚡🤯⚡. . .😯
Greg, it appears that your topics, the quality and quantity of your output, and your humility and interest in citing sources to back your conclusions has, and this is a bit baffling, attracted the attention of some personality-disordered narcissists.
Your description of how at least one of them, when refuted by citations and facts, will slyly attempt to change the topic, is textbook.
Such defective persons will never admit wrongdoing and error, take pleasure in bullying behavior, and exploit pro-social gatherings to call attention to themselves, and to cause suffering.
Your response, too, is near textbook: refute them with facts and citations, so that other readers know these narcissists and disordered individuals are wrong, and move on. Such creatures are best denied the one thing they crave: attention of any kind, and admiration.
Greg, I wouldn’t worry about others and if they say negative things. You are fact base and able to demonstrate this with DCS and original documentation. My feeling is you are willing to consider other views, and it is to enjoy cars and airplanes. Great stuff!
I would be very interested in a video all about Jimmy Doolittle, most of the stuff here on RUclips is all about the famous Tokyo raid and not his career afterwards. He’s one of those figures who pops up a lot in American aviation and it would nice to hear his full story from a biographical perspective.
His autobio ("I Could Never Be So Lucky Again") is a really remarkable book. No good way to tell for sure, but it feels like an extremely honest account (at least with respect to himself-- he would absolutely paint things in a way that made his country and his troops look better).
The purchase price and operating cost, especially in fuel, of the P51 was much lower than the P47. That likely had a big effect on which was chosen. One chart that I saw had the purchase price in 1943 of the P51 was about $58.8K whereas the P47 as about $104K. Prices of both dropped somewhat the next year, but the P47 was still considerably more expensive.
Greg showed that chart in the final part of his P47 series
"The purchase price and operating cost, especially in fuel, of the P51 was much lower than the P47."
Indeed. However, the P-47 is easily worth it. The P-51 did well in part because it never had to face truly serious opposition. In some ways, you might say that it was the next generation of TYPE of fighter up from the Zero. Very good in some ways, but achieving that through tradeoffs that were NOT a good thing when outside its comfort zone.
In particular, the durability of the planes is like night and day, the P-51 was lightweight high performance, while the P-47 was highperformance but absolutely nowhere close to lightweight. Hits that would cause the P-51 to drop like a fly flying through flames, the P-47 would generally shrug off barely noticing them.
Facing strong opposition, the P-47 would be vastly superior, as you would take distinctly less losses than P-51s would.
While against weak opposition, where serious losses are unlikely, the P-51 is dramatically more affordable, allowing you to field more of them which in turn increases the chance of overwhelming the enemy by numbers and reducing losses even more.
Personally, i would take the P-47 every time, but the P-51 has its own values.
@@DIREWOLFx75 " *Hits that would cause the P-51 to drop like a fly flying through flames, the P-47 would generally shrug off barely noticing them.* "
During Corea they compared P51 and F4U Corsairs. You'd think that an air-cooled Corsair would prove to be much more durable, big plane and all. It wasn't.
I don't know about the P47, but I suspect that the real life vulnerability would be, at the very least, much closer than the legend has it.
" *Personally, i would take the P-47 every time* "
There were people who switched from Spitfires to P-47. Granted, it's a rather drastic switch, but it definitely took some adjustment to like their new birds. Switching from a Spit to a Mustang in general went without much of a hassle.
From my point of view: P-47 has a crowd of diehard fans, who are willing to excuse each and every shortcoming of this plane. I think no other WWII bird has similar following. Sure, people do love other planes too, and it's likely that every good warbird has maybe even higher following. Some people love faulty warbirds, but they tend to be well aware of the shortcoming of the design which stroke their fancy.
The P-47 crowd? It's like you guys soar to new heights! Which is fitting, because that's were P-47 truly shone the brightest! ;-)
@@bakters "P-47 has a crowd of diehard fans"
Sorry, but i'm not part of that. I just appreciate it for its good sides.
"During Corea they compared P51 and F4U Corsairs. You'd think that an air-cooled Corsair would prove to be much more durable, big plane and all. It wasn't."
I don't actually know about the Corsair, but i know that the P-47 was compared to the TBF Avenger in regards to taking damage and still keep on flying.
And the Avenger held the informal record for taking most number of hits and still flying for a looong time.
IIRC, the recordholder was an Avenger from the battle of Midway, where one managed to limp back to base with literally hundreds of holes in it from anything from standard 25mm IJN AA to 7mm MG shots from Zero's.
So yeah, THAT is the kind of reputation for durability the P-47 ended up competing with.
While the P-51, about the kindest said about its lack of durability is that it's even more fragile than a Spitfire.
Basically, a single 20mm hit on a P-51 usually either missionkilled it or shot it down.
A P-47 was essentially never lost to something so "minor".
@@DIREWOLFx75 " *A P-47 was essentially never lost to something so "minor".* "
And we know it, because?
Survivor bias is a thing. For example, the Hurricane also gathered a reputation of coming back with substantial damage and was believed to be more durable than at least the Spit. Upon more careful analysis, it turned out that the Spit was more durable.
I mean, let's be real. A jug was a thin-skinned, single engined fighter, not a flying tank. The pilot was not protected from most angles, so technically even a single 30cal bullet could down the plane, and I suspect it might even happen at some point. The engine was not armored, and because if was an aviation engine, it was built as light as they could. Yes, it was a big engine, but it mostly makes it a big target.
Actually, that's all that P-47 had going for him. It was a big plane, so there was a chance that a shot will hit "the plane", yet somehow miss anything of vital importance. That was more likely to happen when shot directly from behind with small caliber weapons. All those turbos were not critical.
Apart from that, it was an air-cooled and lightly built plane, just like A6M2, only bigger.
Greg's version of Drach's Drydock! Hooray!
I could listen to this stuff all day!
MiG-25's speed is limited by heat from the aerodynamic drag, and at altitude depends of the metheorogical and regional conditions, that were sometimes very favorable above Egypt and Israel. MiG-25R that was clocked M3.2 over Sinai was piloted by a test pilot. He got the order "from above" to disregard instruction from the MiG buerau monitoriing team about Mach limit. Engines WERE removed, but for inspection.
Greg I am very happy to have found your channel. I really have enjoyed your videos and I like watching the DCS gameplay. I’ve just gotten back into flight sims and predominantly fly IL2, and love the Jug. I will eventually get into DCS.
Captain Eric Brown was a fantastic source of information. He flew more aircraft variants than anyone alive, by some margin. As such, it would be foolish, in our part, to expect him to be correct in every single statement that he made.
Although he had a very sharp mind, even up until his very last days, he was still a human being, and no human being was or will ever be infallible. Numbers can get mixed up, aircraft variants can be confused, or it can be down to something as simple as misspeaking.
So, for any source, be it Eric Brown or anybody else, it should always be compared with other sources, be put into context, and consider its potential fallibility.
I agree, I have a lot of respect for him. He went through some really tough times in the war, especially after his carrier was sunk and he had to survive at sea. His flying exploits really are the stuff of legend, but he is after all human.
Hey Greg, while the MGFF could not fire minengeschoss, while the MGFF/M could fire it, but not fire the regular rounds, the regular rounds were altered to work in the MGFF/M. And the MG-151/20 could fire both from the start, to my knowledge. Several historical belts include the 'heavier' AP alongside the 'light' minengeschoss.
The MG FF fired a 134g explosive-tracer shell and the same shell without explosive filler as a practice round that could also penetrate armor and poke holes into fuel tanks.
To make it compatible with the MG FF/M they changed the fuze to one that weight merely 10g instead of 27g, resulting in 115-117g shells, that could be fired together with the ~90g Mineshells.
Since the Mineshell delivered destruction by blast, the explosive-tracer was changed to an explosive-incendiary shell.
The same shell was later modified to be just an incendiary shell by removing explosive and detonator to make it only carry incendiary mixture.
@@kimjanek646
Thank you, chatGPT!
@@ThatZenoGuy Very intelligent reply.
@@kimjanek646
Yeah! ;D
@@ThatZenoGuy 🙃
I took tactical Mach limit as the speed at which you can still effectively maneuver the aircraft before all your efforts are focused on just recovery doe to the aircraft reaching its critical Mach limit but thank you for bringing that up to people
I understood this non-objective term to mean the same thing. But, they don't define it anywhere. Other that in the phrase itself. "Beyond which it is no longer useful for tactics".
Greg,
I have followed you for quite sometime now. I have learned a wealth of in depth knowledge about some of my favorite planes with the best when you do comparisons. I’ve also had the opportunity to own two of your shirt designs. I think you cover some things to the finest detail as possible when able to. The work/narration involved shows the effort you put into each video presentation.
gotta love your videos, and much appreciate the DCS segments, too!
PPS. Great Video! About Eric Brown and his 60 Lbs. figure of force on the stick. The guys who worked on the Goodyear Aerospace Simulator Dome in Taif, KSA, also reached the same conclusions and at least three of the instructor pilots were WW-II aces and claimed that they could do things that others could not. None of them flew P-51s IRL. (2X P-47s and 1X P-38.)
I love watching your videos because they bring back so many great memories from way back when. Keep up the good work.
Awww yis. No matter the work day I grin when there's more Greg
Just keep doing what you are doing man. Your detailed research and full explanations are what make your videos brilliant.
Thank you.
I'm looking forward to watching it. Have a safe trip!
So, I learned not only the limitations of specific aircraft today, but also the limitations of books and authors. I think we have similar personalities. I try to state as accurately as possible what I know to be true, or give my estimates of how far I could be off, and I don't like being misquoted or have my caveats left out. In other words, I am a conscientious person who is more often than not correct. So, I sympathize with your responses to the criticism you get. I hope you get the sense that many others on this channel feel the same way. We greatly appreciate your diligence in creating excellent and accurate content. BTW, great shooting in DCS. I am glad you are on our side.
Thanks for the video. Always learning something new.
What an absolute fountain of information you are Greg. Thanks, your videos are eagerly anticipated.
I fully agree with the fact of authors being stuck with what they have written and their reluctance to change their position after they are proven wrong.
Even though such occurrences are more prominent in books, unfortunately, the same happens with some historians, here on RUclips. There is no need to mention names, but some, after they have spent weeks, or even months developing a narrative, find themselves thereafter very reluctant to correct their work, instead choosing to double down, thus incurring massive holes in their reputation.
This is completely unnecessary, frustrating for those who have explored the topic, and misleading for those who are just beginning to learn about it.
In my book, there is enormous grace in admitting one's mistake, correcting it, leaning from it and avoiding it in the future.
“Soviet fighters had a tendency to leak carbon monoxide into the cockpit. That’s a big problem.”
I love how Greg talks simply when addressing the Soviet fanboys.
Greg is the man. You make my day better.
Just discovered your channel today and OMG it's awesome! I'm a huge WWII fan so your videos on WWII fighters have been very interesting! You are amazing at explaining things clearly and concisely!
Thanks Stan.
I truly enjoyed listening to your talk while watching you fly. It's my favorites of your vids.
Wow, thanks, it's hasn't been a popular video, but I'm happy with the way it turned out.
Winkle Brown climbed into the Thunderbolt's cockpit and promptly got lost, he clambered into the seat muttering "this is a large aircraft" in his inimitably polite way. I recall Abbott and Costello and the sisters who sang Bugle Boy...see what I mean? I can't get the Pointer Sisters Neutron Dance out of my head.
as always
solid content greg
thank you for your awesome channel
Thanks for your work.
Oh I can't wait to get a load of the angry authors part, this should be good, and I have the feeling it's going to anger fans of certain authors.
Fun fact about ME109's I just uncovered, the first one ever shot down was by an American, Frank Glasgow Tinker ex US Navy pilot flying for the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War, and he was also the first one to shoot down more than 1 although not consecutively, someone else shot one down between his 1st and 2nd ones.
Tinker was hanging around with Ernest Hemingway during the Spanish Civil War and afterwards wrote a book about his experiences called Some Still Live, critics who like Hemingway say it's a good read and very much in Hemingway's style, during the war Tinker drew maps of the locations of the airstrips used by the Republicans and Nationalists along with other information not recorded by anyone else, his book is considered to be the best source of information about the air war due to lack of official documentation by either side and historians consider it to be the best source of reference material when doing research about the air war aspect of the Spanish Civil War, I'm getting it next to read.
Speaking of angry people I just got done reading Tommy Blackburn's book Jolly Rogers, Blackburn was the commander of VF-17, they were one of the first two units carrier qualified with the F4U in early 43 and they were who worked directly with Vought to improve the F4U resulting in the F4U-1A, his book covers the real reason why the F4U was removed from carrier service which had nothing to do with it being too difficult to land on carrier's, not for US Navy pilots anyway, it was because in his words the F4U was "over engineered" leading half of them to constantly being deadlined, that coupled with a shortage of spare parts and even worse a shortage of qualified maintenance crews prompted the Navy to remove it from carrier service in favor of the much simpler engineered and far easier to maintain F6F that didn't have a shortage of spare parts and qualified maintenance crews like the F4U did, apparently the Navy felt a plane that half were usually deadlined that had a lack of spare parts and maintenance crews wasn't the best choice for a carrier aircraft, imagine that.
The reason they were returned to carrier service was because in June of 1944 the Japanese launched their Kamikaze campaign in ernest, the thought that a single explosive laden plane could possibly sink a ship or at least kill hundreds of men had the Navy return the F4U to carrier service because of it's climb rate of over 4,200 ft per minute compared to the F6F's 3,600 ft per minute rate along with it's faster top speed, the thinking being that a squadron of F4U's would be put on each Essex class carrier, and in the event of a Kamikaze attack the F4U's would launch first and using their superior climb rate and speed intercept the incoming Kamikaze's with F6F's launching behind them to intercept any that made it through the F4U's, by the time they were returned to carrier service there was no longer shortages of qualified maintenance crews and spare parts.
That's the real story behind why the Navy removed the F4U from carrier service then returned it later, not the common fairytale about US Navy pilots supposedly not being able to land their own airplane on their own carrier's until someone came along and taught them how, just because someone in a pub made that claim one day or some aviation writer who knew his target audience would love hearing a story like that put it in a book of his years ago and it caught on because it conveniently fits over a timeline of events doesn't make it true, there's no evidence to support it beyond "We say so", wherein the real story is supported by documented facts like written orders by the Navy's ComAirLand department responsible for all Navy aircraft explaining why F4U's were to be removed from carrier service.
I just love facts that bust bedtime story myths, especially myths created by people taking credit for something they have no right to, and it's fun watching the smug drain right out of the sails of people who gleefully spread myths like that all over the place.
Excellent and fascinating comment about the F4U! I always heard too it was too hard to land, your explanation makes more sense
QUOTE: "That's the real story behind why the Navy removed the F4U from carrier service then returned it later, not the common fairytale about US Navy pilots supposedly not being able to land their own airplane on their own carrier's until someone came along and taught them how [....] there's no evidence to support it beyond "We say so", wherein the real story is supported by documented facts like written orders by the Navy's ComAirLand department responsible for all Navy aircraft explaining why F4U's were to be removed from carrier service."
I haven't read anywhere that the Corsair was bumped from USN carrier service for a period because aviators couldn't safely land the beast on a carrier - but it was definitely delayed from initial carrier service for a host of reasons including a nasty tendency to drop the left wing during landing - all major problems solved one by one. Do you have an authoritative source that makes that claim or are you referring to internet forums etc?
Through reading over many years I understood that the true narrative is exactly as you've presented it - a mixture of reasons to do with logistics & practicality. Regarding the Corsair curving landing approach - this was first used by the RN FAA because they already used that exact landing approach with the Seafire [which has a long V12 nose] - I think it's true that the USN picked up this tip from the RN as they'd used the deadly straight on approach. The straight on method: the FAA fliers were taught this in training in the USA. I think it's correct to say that there was a cross pollination between the USN & the Senior Service. :)
I've just found this in the SMITHSONIAN AIR & SPACE MAGAZINE. Cory Graff. June 2021.
[...] Despite more hair-raising attempts to make the Corsair carrier-ready, conducted by Navy squadrons VF-12 and VF-17, most of the original aircraft found a home in Marine Corps combat squadrons flying from - and more importantly, landing on - island bases.
Over time, Vought engineers and men in the field implemented upgrades to the promising but troubled fighter. Greater air pressure in the airplane’s landing gear oleo easily eliminated much of the pronounced bounce. For a better view from the cockpit, designers replaced the “birdcage” canopy with a frameless clear “bubble.” The additional head space allowed the pilot’s seat to be raised by eight inches. An improved F4U-1A was in the Pacific with the Marines in the summer of 1943.
But it was the British Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm who came up with the concept that brought Corsairs to sea duty for good. The pilots developed a long, curving landing approach to keep the carrier’s deck in sight until the last moments before touchdown[...]
@@rich7787
Yea, the narrative that they'd wanted all along to use it on carrier's but had to wait until someone showed them how to land them on carrier's doesn't make any sense, why would they have been chomping at the bit to replace F6F's that had a kill to loss ratio of 19 to 1 with the F4U that had an 11 to 1 ratio?
When you hold that story that's always been going around up to facts it falls apart, before I even read Blackburn's book I searched high and low for confirmation of it, I couldn't find one written order for a US Navy pilot or unit to report somewhere to be trained by them, not one single US Navy pilot that either says they went somewhere to be trained or even one that verify's the story even though 2nd hand knowledge of it, not a single picture of a US Navy pilot with those who supposedly showed the Navy how to do it or a single film of a US Navy F4U landing on a carrier using their technique, every landing film I looked at showed them being landed using the same method they used for every other aircraft they landed on carrier's during WW2 which is exactly how Blackburn describes how they landed them in his book, as soon as they'd pass the carrier on the downwind leg with their gear and flaps down they'd count to 30 seconds, then turn to the left and straighten out lining up with the carrier (which put them more than 30 seconds behind the carrier since while they flew for 30 seconds after passing it it'd been steaming forward), at about 200 yards from the carrier's stern they'd quit flying the aircraft themselves and start taking control input commands from the LSO who could be seen to the left of the nose despite the nose blocking the view of the deck, not being able to see the deck made no difference since the way they did it with every other aircraft was the same, you shouldn't be watching the deck anyway you're supposed to be watching the LSO, he's the one whose flying the airplane at that point anyway.
VF-17 had carrier qualified on the converted steamship USS Charger in the Chesapeake Bay in the first month's of 1943 after being formed on January 1st, while getting qualified Vought sent people to work directly with VF-17 to work on improving the F4U which resulted in the F4U-1A, Vought promised them that they'd receive the very first F4U-1A's produced, after being carrier qualified they were assigned to the brand new Essex class carrier USS Bunker Hill, the two did their work up together in the Gulf of Paria just off the coast of Trinidad, after returning to Norfolk as promised by Vought there were brand new F4U-1A's waiting for them, before departing the skipper told Blackburn something he'd been fearing all along knowing that the F4U was a high maintenance aircraft that left them with half of them deadlined all the time, the skipper told him he'd been informed by the Admiral that all F4U's were to be removed from carrier service and that all carrier qualified squadrons were to be checked out on the F6F as replacements, but he told Blackburn that he'd had a talk with the Admiral and the two of them agreed that since VF-17 had worked so hard on making the F4U into a carrier capable fighter that if Blackburn felt they could keep them then he'd see what he could do, Blackburn told him in absolutely certain terms that VF-17 felt that the F4U was the best aircraft for them, so the skipper talked to the Admiral and he gave them permission to deploy with them, so VF-17 left Norfolk with their new F4U-1A's on the Bunker Hill bound for the Solomon Islands Campaign, but unfortunately it wasn't over yet, when they put in at Pearl Harbor for provisions they were informed that ComAirLand had sent written orders that all F4U's were to be removed from carrier service citing the lack of spare parts and qualified maintenance crews as the reason, with that there was nothing the Admiral could do for them, it was out of his hands.
At Pearl Harbor VF-17 was removed from the Bunker Hill and replaced with an F6F squadron, they were then loaded onto another carrier that transported them to the Solomon's where they occupied the island airstrip on Espiritu Santo.
By the time they left Espiritu Santo and after just 76 days of combat VF-17 emerged the most successful F4U unit in history with 154.5 aerial victories credited to them and another 27 probably destroyed and 25 damaged, yea right, that sounds like a bunch of guy's who couldn't figure out how to land their own aircraft on their own carrier's and had to have someone else show them how to do it, what a bunch of malarkey that fairytale is.
That's all very interesting. I will be very curious how this is accepted even if you are correct and there really are no true sources regarding them being too difficult to land.
One thing that comes to my mind is that if the Corsair had a tendency to drop a left wing then it seems like a left curving approach would make it worse as the left wing is inside the turn and has slower air moving over it. Thus, it would tend to stall faster.
I almost wonder if the leading edge mods were made after the curved approach was found to be preferred.
One thing I've noticed is that mentioning Greg's work elsewhere seems to get a lot of people worked up. It's very interesting how vile some get. Yet, no one ever cites a real source to contradict him. Just more cliche.
Only the F4U-4 had over 4200 fpm in climb rate (appearing in 1945, barely a WWII type). At 3600 the F6F likely climbed better than the F4U-1d, which I remember as capable of not much above 2400 or 3000 fpm at the very most... The -4 was a massive step up in climb from earlier variants. The reasoning you offer might still apply, but I doubt it concerned the climb rate of 1944 F4U variants.
On the MiG-19 subject, not arguing who had better firepower at that point in time, but keep in mind that those were the days when guns were deleted from aircraft more often than added. MiG-19 started life as a 3-gun fighter, and it swapped pretty quickly to NR-30 mm cannons, but we don't have that variant simulated in DCS. We have MiG-19P, an all-weather interceptor version which was developed simultaneously with the tactical fighter, and which was more of an equivalent to F-102 rather than F-100. Eventually that path of development would led to missile-only MiG-19PM with all guns removed.
Good point on the discrepancy in Russian aircraft performance and other more elusive factors that are hard to convey in the world of flight simulators. A topic definitely worth a full video, although it's always a controversial subject whenever it's mentioned. I remember those arguments on the old Il-2 forums 20 years ago. Some things never change...
Was so happy to see a new extended length video was available for my flight from Melbourne to Perth this evening by Greg. Cannot express my gratitude enough in words. Signed, a long term patreon.
Thanks, I hope it helps pass the time, and I appreciate your support.
Thanks, great video as always.
Thank you very much. My wife will be pleased and encourage my video hobby.
Second time watching this, I just realized how few people know our care about Greg's channel who fly this flight sim... kinda weird. I love this channel and if Greg wanted a 1v1, I think most people would be up for it. But probably most people watching this don't have this game, but just love hearing Greg narrate anything aviation.
Thanks, I do love DCS, but this isn't a DCS channel specifically.
I like the format!!
Opening with "greetings" can be chilling to those of a certain age who were once expecting to receive military draft notices starting with that word!
lol
Greg,your doing a great job! How refreshing it is to hear someone that knows his history,knows his aircraft. Republic Aviation produced the best aircraft that did all the hard work and won wars Republic Aviation rules My father flew 139 missions in the F-105 flying two tours and a IP in the F-105 in between.He loved that jet.
Thanks Richard. A lot of people who flew the F-105 loved it. Today it seems a bit forgotten, which is a shame.
Re: Mine shells
I think I recall it was about muzzle velocity. The allied Hispano guns had a high MV, the much lighter German ones not. While low weight is great, low MV wasn't, so light weight shell to the rescue. Conveniently filled with a lot of explosives for effect.
You're probably more correct than most will give you credit.
From the firearm side, gun weight is highly dependent on caliber, but also chamber pressure. Chamber pressure translates into velocity of a given mass. A large caliber is larger mass, all things being equal.
If you have a lightweight, low pressure gun for arial work, lightning the projectile will translate into improved muzzle velocity. But possibly lower downrange velocity, ideally at a range beyond effective engagement distance. Even with lower velocity at the target, having a substantial amount of explosives in the projectile is going to help a lot when dealing with wood, and sheet skinned aluminum aircraft. I suspect also very effective against light stringers and aux spars. But, it appears by P-47 durability, and German desire for 30mm against bombers, I would say 20mm was ineffective against heavy built up aluminum spars and probably steel components and trusses as well.
I watch every video you
Post that I can, I love these ww2 aero stories, even if I hadn’t had an interest in that previous topic
What? A WWII veteran with a large ego made a post-war self-aggrandizing claim that contradicts all other primary sources? Wow, I've never heard that one before.
Probably propaganda to boost morale
Not an engineer or a pilot, but my guess is that the comment about the build quality of the P-51 translates pretty well to a LOT of fairly elaborate mechanical devices, and - if museum displays are any indication - to a lot of other aircraft, military and civilian alike.
Thanks for Your time and efforts Greg.
Excellent Greg, you may want to check the video discussing wether the P-47 or P-51 was the better fighter, that’s on the “Australian Military Aviation History” channel here on YT. Quite a debate developed there and it involves much of the topics you covered here.😉
I'm just happy that it's a debate. Ten years ago nobody was talking about this.
There's no such thing as "the best fighter" of WW2 or even one that can be proven better than any others, there's only people's favorites.
It's impossible to come up with some kind of a formula to prove a case, total kills and kill to loss ratios don't prove anything because of all the different circumstances and conditions that they fought under, at the end of the day people just have a favorite one and they'll argue for it but it's impossible to quantify any kind of results.
It's like this whole thing about the P47's critical Mach number, at the end of the day so what, even if it is as low as the Eric Brown deciples claim based on his say so apparently it's not that important considering the P47's combat record, the fact that a bunch of guy's new to aerial warfare showed up in it and shot down Luftwaffe pilots from when the Luftwaffe was at it's height speaks volumes, they were fighting against pilots who'd survived the Spanish Civil War, the Battle of Britain and fighting in the east and they still shot them down at 7 to 1, even more every time one of those Luftwaffe pilots with a ridiculously high score got sent to the west from the east they were promptly blasted out of the sky by P47's, those are really the only things that matter.
@@dukecraig2402Agreed!👍🏻👍🏻
@@dukecraig2402it also shouldn't be underestimated the disadvantages the allied escorts were placed at, flying much further from any bases meant, less options to return home with damage, less ground control support and more fuel restrictions.
@@charlesfowler4308
Oh yea, chances are if they had to bail out they weren't doing it over friendly territory, I've read and heard in more than one interview with pilots who said that they were worried about making it all the way across the Channel and faced with the prospects of dying from hypothermia within minutes of being in the water they determined within seconds it was better to become a POW and bailed out over German held territory, about the only real concern there is you don't want to bail out over a place you just got done dropping bombs on, more than once Wermacht troops had to show up and save downed members of bomber crews from angry villagers with clubs and pitchforks, those bomber crews knew it was best to ride it out as far away from where you just dropped your bombs as possible, I read once of a P51 pilot who was killed by townspeople who mistakingley thought that rounds impacting on the ground from dogfighting above them was the planes strafing them.
Sitting here playing war thunder in my DO 335 A while watching gregs battle and listening to his narrative 😂 Love ya work Greg
If you like that, try upgrade to the Do-335 B2.
Yes please do an in-depth video of the MiG-19/F-6 and it's varying performance from it's different operators.
Back in the day in Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator the FW 90 was almost impossible to shoot down. It was ridiculously immune to 50bmg rounds.
I spent many hours on MS flight sims and found them to provide a surprisingly realistic flying experience; however, watching a real pilot flying here is an eye opener. You fly the simulated FW 90 as if it’s a real plane.
In Jane's WWII fighters as a kid, the AI FW was unbeatable on ace level. It would handily out-run a P-51, fly out to 1.2mi ahead, loop into a head-on pass with four cannons, and two Mgs blazing. They rarely missed.
God I loved this format so much
it's like our version of a fireside chat but Greg is flying
Hi Greg, I appreciate your breadth of topics, research of original sources, and detailed analyses of the issues. What PC peripherals do you use for flying Sims?
Track IR, thrustmaster pedals and Logitech X56 HOTAS.
👍@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Love whatcha do Greg, best plane content on RUclips hands down.
Not even close to the best.
Thank you for the great video.
I have not read into the topic too much. So take it with a grain of salt. But I have "dealt" with the topic since I am flying flight sims for now almost 10 years. But my personal interpretation is that the germans would have gone with mine shells in either case because they found or thought mineshells are more effective against any air target. Regardless of construction. While metal is less prone to HE damage, a HE hit still leaves large holes (much larger than the projectiles diameter) and causes heavy aerodynamic damage (they also added a incendiary component). On top of that the rifle calibre and heavy machine gun armament (7.9mm and later 13mm) and as mainly amour piercing capabilities. But even in the case of the 13mm they still added HE filler to the belts. The MK 151 belts also contained an AP projectile every X shot.(I believe every 3rd)
I think there was even a change of doctrine later in the war to remove AP from cannon belts and add in more HEI.
The trend to add more HE(I) to the german armament basically went on until the end of the war. And this also happened on the western front. Indicating that wooden planes were not the main thought. Even tho a higher effectiveness against an IL-2 was certainly welcome.
also the 151 was shooting most certainly a mixed ammo belt and not only mine shells.
Thanks Sheriff.
That format was fun to watch, Greg. Outstanding, as usual.
I don't understand why people attack you!! You seem like an awesome guy!! I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and your videos!! You know so much about airplanes and cars! I am a machinist and understand everything you say, and it all makes sense to me! Don't let crazy people on RUclips bother you. When you put yourself out there, there are always some nut jobs who come out of the woodwork and will attack you! I would say the vast majority love your videos!! You go into so much detail, and I always learn something i didn't know, and I know a lot!
Thanks, and it doesn't bother me. I appreciate your comment.
"...although it's not stated in plane text..."
I am not sure why this subtle accidental pun was so funny to me, maybe because of it being about a flight manual or most likely because my brain is broken.
I'm not sure about your CFS skills, but As far as easy listening tech goes while painting the house you are a true ace! I took on full drop tanks and am in for the entire mission!
What is cfs? 😀
@@gregorteply9034Combat Flight Simulator, like DCS.
@@Clowndoe thanks
While floating around on the interweb I ran into a royal aeronautical society paper by JAD Ackroyd about the aerodynamics of the spitfire.It’s quite interesting although I don’t have the knowledge to completely understand it. There is a graph with some Mach numbers of various fighters including the p47 which seems to put it at around 0.73 if I understand it correctly.
PS. The German 20 MM HE-I shells came in two Versions, the mine shell which massed 94-96 grams each and the conventional Drilled Bar Stock HE-I shell of about 108-110 Grams Mass. They had 17-18 grams of PETN in the mine shells and 4.5-6 Grams of various types of HE in the conventional shell. The AP-I shell had less explosive but Massed about 108-110 Grams per projectile with a solid nose and a base fuse. MV Varied from 750 M/S for the Mine shell and 705 M/S for the other two types. War time Hisso ammo used a drilled bar-stock shell of about 130 Grams with a flat nosed fuse, or a one caliber ogive for the AP-i shell. With about 4.5-5.6 grams of HE loaded. MV was about 880 M/S Out of the early guns and 840 M/S out of the post war Mk-V Hissos.
anticipation is high
I've come to hold Greg as one of my favorite sources for the sort of in-depth technical discussion of aviation, particularly in the WW2 era, that keeps me enthralled while boring my friends and relatives to tears.
In other words, just my sort of chap. I could imagine having a very informative and fascinating discussion of any number of winged things over a pint.
nice long video greg
Greg, your videos are informative and entertaining. Thanks for making them! I really appreciate it.
Unfortunately Saint Eric Brown, whilst undoubtably a great test pilot, did have a massive ego and was a little full of his own self-importance. He wasn't beyond embellishing a story. The recently released biography, 'Winkle' by Paul Beaver, is a very good insight into the personality of a man he knew very well.
Just about everything that came out of Browns mouth that had to do with America was a jealousy based lie, massive ego wasn't his only problem, he had a jealous streak in him a mile wide, he spent the rest of his life never being able to get over the fact that it was an American pilot who was the first to break the sound barrier and not him, so like a child in a fit of rage he spent the rest of his life telling lies about America supposedly having stolen how to do it from the British, he was a little child.
When I first discovered Eric Brown books of his impressions of various aircraft, I thought they were great comparisons. But at some point, it seemed like about the first thing he mentioned on any American plane was how excessively roomy the cockpit was, and it seemed to color everything else he had to say about those planes. His love of the Spitfire was obvious, and I have no doubt it was a great plane. But there are different models, different roles, different opposition, and no plane is best in everything. It's been a long time since I read any of his books, maybe being American colors my views as much as his being British colors his views. But as you say, Saint Brown has worn out his welcome in my to-read shelves. The few times I have read his reports since, I pay attention only to the most obvious objective remarks and discount everything else as poorly presented opinion.
I don't know if my father had ever heard of Eric Brown till much later, and I honestly don't know when he heard about him but there are a couple of things.
1) I didn't recognise my father in a group of 3 people in RAF uniform against a backdrop of trees. He pointed himself out and I did not understand, he was so thin. He did not resemble himself and he would be about 20 or more.
2) As far as I can gather most of his work was on bombers although he mentioned a spitfire being polished for photo reconisance work.
3) He described the American cockpits as being very roomy.
Perhaps it is all a matter of expectations.
Is he any worse than Yeager?
@@Trashcansam123
Yes, wherein the massive ego thing would be a good comparison between the two Chuck Yeager didn't spend the rest of his life writing books and giving interviews telling one lie after the other about England like Brown did about America, he was a compulsive liar when it came to America, I'm not talking about American aircraft, I'm talking about his nonsense claims like having seen Adolf Hitler shake Jessie Owens' hand, tell that to any historian and they'll probably die of laughter right in front of you, the entire world knows that Hitler got up and walked out of the 36 Olympics when Owens was crossing finish lines and setting records because it publicly embarrassed Hitler after all his talk about the Aryian race being supreme, the reason Brown made that claim is because he knows it's an embarrassing thing for America that FDR didn't invite Owens to the White House like all other gold metal athletes do, so he figured if he could convince people that Hitler shook Owens' hand that really makes FDR and America look bad.
Other lies I've heard him tell is the nonsense claim that he had it on good authority that the Horten Flying Wing was assembled in secret in America in the 50's and test flown, which he followed up by saying that "it was a shame that it wasn't flown by a 'proper' test pilot because so much could have been learned from it", another far fetched tale that he made up so he could throw that little jab about test pilots in it implying America doesn't have any of his caliber, what a joke, he didn't even have a degree in anything, and the whole world knows that piece of junk Horten disaster never flew, the workmanship in it is not anything close to being airworthy from them continually cutting things apart and rewelding them when they were building the pile of crap, no test pilot in the world would have gotten in that thing after inspecting it, it's a death trap that'd kill anyone who tried flying it just like their previous one did, the Hotens weren't advanced enough to understand the unique things needed to control a flying wing which is why their test pilots died.
But his biggest lie has to be his claim that Jimmy Doolittle ask him to solve "problems with US aircraft", oh god that man was a liar, right, Jimmy Doolittle who had a doctorate in aeronautics, the first man to fly an all instrumental flight, first man to perform an outside loop, one of the greatest pioneers in aviation who also had the entire resources of the USAAF and NACA at his disposal went to Eric Brown to ask him for help, a man with no degree in anything, what a laugh that is.
Yea, far worse than Yeager.
Thanks for mentioning pointe du hoc, what a rabbit hole that proved out to be.
Yup, it's deep alright. Glad I could help.
that dogfight was tense
Hey can you provide a link for the Eric Brown interview you're referring to? In the one I'm watching he never actually mentions "tactical" Mach limit, though he does pretty much describe it the same way: "the Me-109 could maneuver up to Mach 0.78". The only ones I've seen are the Dronescapes videos, and they're all of the same two interview sessions just with different parts included...
Nevermind that, I must have missed it last time but you did say it was from his book which I haven't got.
Greg, I watch your videos for the thoroughness of your evaluations and caveats facing uncertainties. You seek truth and call out when fog is present. I also am a WWII buff, of sorts. So your content and especially your methods attract me.
These attract me because I was fortunate during my early 20s to have a job evaluating information on chemicals’ toxic effects. This was fortunate because I reviewed the vast majority (all?) of sources available and discovered there can be a lot of “fog” in the scientific literature. This effort included peer-reviewed scientific literature…with mistakes, contradictions, and uncertainty. The value of the skepticism I developed served me well in my scientific and engineering career.
Re; Cannon, Luftwaffe experts saw the need for cannon armed fighters in the Spanish civil war, as the "Condor legion". They will have learned by fighting the IL-16 Polikarpov, and the Italian biplanes. Most all their early combat knowledge came from there, not hypothetical visions of future wars.
Wild that people would get super hostile over this stuff but then again we have seen it before on the internet. Long video but definitely a good one to listen to and retouch alot of the previous videos. When talking about the mine cannon rounds we are talking about minegeschloß right or am I thinking of a different round.
I ❤Greg’s Channel! - Greg, join us for the 80th Memorial Ceremony on D-Day 2024 and we will visit all the beaches together. I’m either planning an Air Assault with Tyro at the controls or boat arrival if the weather is too bad. Our RV point is Duxford a few days before and then rally at the Omaha Beach Memorial on June 6th.
Thanks Juice. I'm confused thought, is this in real life or on the DCS Normandy map?
Wonderful presentation, Gregg. Thanks
"Kurt, we need a mine cannon on the one-nine-oh!" - Kurt flips two birds as his office is bugged.
The mine-shell topic would explain some of the footage of German gun cameras shooting up B-17s without being able to bring them down.
Soviet test pilot Kondaurov noted in his memoirs that F-5 that they tested against MiG-21 and 23 was VASTLY superior in terms of cockpit convenience. He mentioned that only by early 80s this problem was dealt with. By the way, the F-5 completely dusted both MiGs (albeit it was 23MF not 23ML).
@sasha022 Yep, Su-27 and MiG-29 are almost 10 years later designs than US teen fighters. Tomcat was only less than 1 year away from flying in 1960s.
Pointe du Hoc was my first introduction to the Normandy landings, as it was the first US mission in Call of Duty 2, the first popular WW2 medium I came across. No mention of French executions, though.
Love the video😊
As regards German cannons, I think people conflate the 20mm MG151 mine shells with the 30mm MK101/3/8 cannons. The former show a more clear shift from general use 20mm HE shells over to the specialized variants, while the latter are almost exclusively seen used for the anti-bomber role due to their size and time of introduction (ignoring the antitank uses here). When taking into account that the MG FF had to be changed into the MG FF/M to use the new mine shells, it makes more sense that the MG 151 was intended from the ground up to be able to use the mine shells, but were able to use other types as well.
I think a lot has to do with the operating mechanism of the gun. The MG FF and the Mk 108 were API blowback guns, where the strength of the spring has to be tightly tuned to the shell being fired. The Mg 151 was a short recoil operated gun, which is a bit more flexible wrt different ammunition weights.
I hadn't considered the operating mechanism, which goes some length to explaining the differences. Using War Thunder for quick reference (forgive me), I certainly see more shell types and weights for the 151 than the Mk 108 or even Mk 103. Looks like the latter only has mine shells for explosive types while the Mg 151 has at least 3 different AP-type shells. The MG FF only lists APHE and AP-I. @@jbepsilon
An addition to speaking about mineshells in the Battle of Britain. It is possible that they were very effective against the most common fighter at that point for the RAF, the Hurricane, as it had a fabric covered rear half.
at the time they were much more effective that any RAF airplane Armed with the Ridiculous 0.303 rounds .
How are you snapshotting to enemies at around 14:00? I've never seen that in DCS before. Same with 18:38, you snapshot and highlight under your wing? Is that a binding?
That's padlock, it's not available in all servers, some consider it cheating. I feel it makes up for the limitations of a computer.
What does it do exactly? Nearest enemy or nearest plane?@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
I just got done watching the interview on the "dronescapes" channel (though there's multiple, they seem to post the same exact videos with a different title every three days), Brown never actually used the term "useless" for the P38 and 47... however he did say that the Mustang was useless at high altitude before it was mated with the merlin engine (a fair assessment).
Eric Brown absolutely did use the word "useless" to describe the P-47. Just because "dronescapes" didn't post it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Hello, in one of your videos I saw you list a bunch of other aviation youtubers you thought were worth watching but I cannot remember what video it was in. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me some as it's hard to know what channels are good or not
Greg, you’re fighting the most data - resistant cult in aviation. I doubt you’ll make much of a dent, but thanks for the outstanding effort.
Thanks William. I think you're correct.
Thanks Greg. It was an entertaining general topics video. To watch and to listen.
Thank you
I presume the big red warning sign behind the pilot "Achtung..." is something about the hood or cockpit canopy being spring-loaded.
Brown’s physical size also played into his opinions on literally every US plane of WWII.
He says that basically every US cockpit was “overly large.” While this could mean a lot of things, I think it’s a good indication of his size relative to the expected size of an American pilot.
I also think a lot of non pilots underestimate the strength and endurance it can take to pilot a combat fighter, especially one without contemporary aeronautical design and controls (not that I am a pilot or that I personally understand this).
I do think Brown is a fascinating individual with a lot of interesting perspectives, but primary sources should always be examined critically. Look at Belton Y Cooper’s “Death Traps,” which makes the case that the M4 Sherman was a “death trap,” when the survival rates of tanks and crewmen very much state otherwise (Nicholas Moran shows this pretty conclusively on his channel).
Great points, and yes, a Sherman tank was one of the safest places to be as a front line combatant in WW2.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles thanks for the response! I love your channel- I learned so much from your channel, and it’s inspired me to learn more as a result.
I find it hilarious that anyone would dislike you Greg. Your obviously the more popular RUclipsrs on the subjects you've continued to ace. Some people are just odd I guess. Anyway another very interesting video. Thanks
Has Greg ever displayed his DCS setup? Would love to see it
The other reason Soviet (and not only) pilots flew with canopies open (at least in Yaks) was that (backed up by many Polish pilots memoirs from WW2) the perspex glass used in canopies became yellow and harder to see through quite quickly.
Yes, and in some cases it would frost up during a dive.
they also had a problem with getting the canopy back or even off to bail out. Russian fighters had no jettison system in their early inline fighters. It took direct combat to get the factories to fit the means to get the canopy open in a crisis.
@@michaelbevan3285first thing was mentioned in the video. I’m not aware of any early inline props with jettison seats
I think you’re right on Brown. He specifically says the p47 “could fight up to a Mach number of .71”. Which lends water to your argument of an acceptable controllability at a given Mach number.
Thanks.
Looking forward to it
Professor Greg delivers again...
👁️🌪️👁️
Thanks!
a standalone video on Jimmy Doolittle would be much appreciated.