B-17 Flying Fortress - What It Couldn't Do
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2019
- The B-17 is one of the most famous heavy bombers from World War 2 but it was also supposed to be used in quite a different role. One it couldn't fulfill.
- Signup for your FREE trial to The Great Courses Plus here: ow.ly/uwHO30pjV73
- Patreon: / milavhistory
- PayPal: www.paypal.me/BismarckYT
⚜ Find Me On Social Media ⚜
- Twitter: / milavhistory
- Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Facebook: / militaryaviationhistory
⚜ The Great Courses Plus ⚜
The Great Courses Plus is currently available to watch through a
web browser to almost anyone in the world and optimized for the US, UK
and Australian market. The Great Courses Plus is currently working to
both optimize the product globally and accept credit card payments
globally.
⚜ Sources ⚜
John Lundstrom, The First Team and the Guadalcanal campaign, Naval Institute Press
Craig Morris, The Origins of American Strategic Bombing Theory, Naval Institute Press
Jerry Struts, B-17 Flying Fortress
Thomas Wildenberg, Billy Mitchell’s War With the Navy, Naval Institute Press
William Wolf, Douglas B-18 Bolo, Schiffer Publishing
#B17 #sponsored #MilitaryAviationHistory
USA: - Army vs. Navy rivalry -
Japan: "Dude, hold my sake."
aint that the goshdarned truth
Goering would like to have a word
Oh totally. The main reason was that the Navy was heavily composed of people from the Satsuma, Chosu, and Osaka domains. Meaning, they had a bitter hatred for anyone in the eastern provinces due to the Tokugawa shogunate and the Sengoku period. Rivalries were so bad, they refused to share technologies.
The rivalry between the US Army and Navy was like a sports rivalry. The Japanese Army and Navy was more like a rivalry between drug dealers.
Steve J I love that comparison 💀
I had the privilege of jumping out the bomb bay doors of a B-17 at the World Free Fall Convention a while back. Got a 30 min flight as it went to altitude. Spent most of that time with my head out the top hatch watching the Illinois landscape slowly scroll past. Then the big moment. The bomb bay doors opened and the 10 of us eagerly made the drop just like the bombs of old. Got the whole jump on video. I 'll treasure it and the memories forever.
Bob Jones Post the video!
Post the videos!
You are the BOMB !
Thanks for that. I got a clear picture in my head of what that would look like. You are a bit of a genius in describing an event concisely.
Post it
American navy and army rivalry: like two opposing football teams
Japanese navy and army rivalry: the last place where feudal japan still existed
Wasn’t their rivalry an almost direct result of the warring states period?
lol
@@sirboomsalot4902 Not exactly. But the two "Daimyo-Ships" (like feudal principalities) who were leading the Mejji-Restoration and the Imperial Forces during the Boshin War were Choshu and Satsuma. Naturally, the Samurai elites of these two regions occupied the most important positions in the new imperial government. Satsuma had a long naval tradition and therefore dominated the Navy, while Choshu was a land power and dominated the Army. The famous Admiral Togo (the victor of Tsushima) was from Satsuma for example. The rivalry between the two Samurai factions developed into a rivalry between the two militarys branches - with the known results. (Both having an airforce, both competing over resources and of course the constant debate about the main strategic focus of the japanese expansion - into Manchuria, Russia and China (Army) or towards Indochina, Dutch-India and the Philippines (Navy).
Untrue Lie perhaps that is why in most militaries the Air Force is its own branch to balance the other two.
The only people that hated the Japanese navy more than the American navy was the Japanese Army.
So ... the B17 was conceived as a strategic bomber, then marketed (very successfully) as ship-killer, even though it really sucked at killing ships, however it was eventually used effectively as a strategic bomber.
It wasn't effective as a strategic bomber! It had a bombload of a two engined bomber.
From about 1942 the Germans deployed the Lotfe 7 computing bombsight on Fw 200 Condors. With this bimbsight they achieved over a 50% hit rate from 12000ft to 16000ft against escorted merchant ships. See the attack on Convoy Faith. Clearly the B17 could have achieved the same. Hitting a maneuvering destroyer ship was of course much harder and very high hit rates could be achieved with guided bombs such as the Fritz-X. For the Germans the problem was carrier born escorts (which the Fw 200 airliner couldn’t handle) and the belated introduction of the He 177.
The USAAF also had the AZON guided bomb but it could be steered left/right AZimuthONly but although it was good against bridges, rail and roads it wasn’t used against ships.
mcstaal It’s true the B17 had a limited Bombay but aircraft such as say the Lancaster could not have carried as many bombs (6000lbs) at 25000ft or above at the same speed. The Landcasters service ceiling was 21500ft at 63000lbs.. The German 8.8cm FLAK 37 was quite effective at 20,000ft but was relatively ineffective at 25000ft where the much less numerous 10.5cm, 12.8cm and 8.8cm FLAK 41 guns needed to be used. The Liberator did drop more bombs but it was in danger of dropping out due to its lower operational ceiling.
@@mcstaal - there is more than just the bomb load to consider. The B17 could take a massive amount of punishment before going down. It had a legendary survival rate in the worst of circumstances.
It was said to have survived direct flack hits, and also a mid-air collision with a FW-190 and still could get home.
The B17 was the most produced strategic bomber for a good reason.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs - one of the unappreciated values of the B17 in the Pacific was its ability to interdict Japanese carrier functions.
Although the carrier fleet could virtually always maneuver to avoid the bombs dropped from the B17, these evasive maneuvers temporarily stopped all carrier takeoffs and landings.
This meant that the mere presence of the B17s could have prevented tactical carrier actions needed to either strike back at the attacking US carriers, or force the returning zeros to ditch in the sea instead of landing safely. In the air, the zeros couldn't attack them at that altitude, so they could have safely fulfilled a tactical interdiction role.
But they were never actually used that way to my knowledge.
"Air Corps saw the Navy as something that could be... vulnerable to surprise attacks."... OOF
"we'll never get caught out like the Navy!" [loses 2/3 of B-17 in the attack on Pearl Harbor]
NIPPON BONZAI!!!!
@@Treblaine wait no that also happens to the navy
@@memeboi6017 [Spiderman pointing meme]
Look up a character called Lieutenant General Walter Short, who was the commanding officer of the USAAF bases in Pearl Harbor.
In 1941, the Americans had been given a lot of pointers from the British on how to keep their airfields safe. Among the things they said was:
- Disperse your planes, do not park them wingtip to wingtip, as a strafing run will take out entire squadrons before they even have the chance to take off.
- Here's radar, it'll take some training but once your crews know how to work it, it'll increase the security of your base a hundred fold.
Short, very suspicious of anything new, decided to give Radar low priority as the men needed to man it could also be used elsewhere. He also kept to parking planes wingtip to wingtip as this was according to military doctrine, it made them easy to guard, easy to arm and easy for the pilots to get into.
After Pearl Harbor happened, Short was summoned to the white house where President Rooseveld asked him directly. "You had been given radar, you had every opportunity to stop that attack from happening, why were those planes ON THE GROUND?"
I doubt that Short was honest enough to admit to FDR that he saw no merit in Radar and the dispersion of the planes as it went against his own personal preferences on how he wanted to run the airfields.
Every adult in my childhood had been involved in WW2.
My dad built airfields an uncle was a crew chief on B 17s then the 29s, his service was the Pacific and another uncle, served aboard the USS Augusta, others in the Army, mostly in the ETO.
My mother worked on medium and heavy bombers flown back for major repairs and upgrades.
My stepdad served in the USMC, fighting from Guadalcanal to Okinawa.
As a result, I grew up on war stories that were 1st hand along with war movies and TV shows.
The Germans were always the enemy in our war games.
Later in life, I came to work for a German company managing a guest ranch they had built in Arizona.
The ranch was just for Europeans, mostly Germans.
I was surprised to find how in love with things American, Cowboys, the Old West, guns, and WW2 American military things, including the B 17 they were.
And their love of the American Civil War, they even have Re-enactors who fight Civil War battles. They prefer being the Rebels.
Our guest stayed on average 1 or more months at a time.
I still have many wonderful friends in Germany.
My 1st wife was English and her dad and uncles fought against the Germans, and never forgave them for bombing non -military targets.
Even though the British did the same. By midway through the war, everyone was bombing everything.
I remarried years later to a pretty girl with blonde hair and blue eyes who grew up on the Rhine.
Now I understand both sides of the War.
And war movies are more fun...
" Honey, what did he say?"
Often times her answers are
" They are not Germans, its English with bad accents..."
Why would they prefer the Confederates 🤮
@@m26pershing98 study the history of the South, there's more than just 1861-65.
In that you may learn why they like them
Another fantastic video as always Bismarck.
An informative look into an obscure role the B-17 played during its history.
Is this the channel previously by the name Bismarck that covered warthunder and Il-2?
@@Fnatic2010 Yes.
@@cannonfodder4376 aha. Used to watch the guy like back in 2014-15. Then just rediscovered the channel :3
12,731 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, approximately 4,735 were lost during the War.
Bombarider: uhhh sir why is the cruiser diving?
Pilot: We must have sunk it!
Bombarbier: (mumbling) I didnt drop any bombs tho...
The BOMBER was TOO LOUD.
The CRUISER CAPTAIN had a headache and wanted some quiet.
*;~)°*
how did you switch from _Bombarider_ to _Bombarier_ without realizing that both of them are wrong
@@plasticballs lmfao that's hilarious 😂
My father was a second lieutenant and a bombardier on a B-17 during World War II; he and his crew were all KIA on their third mission! I will always remember them until the day I die
Problem was there was no pickle-barrel on the ships decks...
Actually the main problem was that the ships had an annoying habit of not moving in straight lines once they sighted bombers overhead. Basically they took the pickle barrel out from under the bombs that had very nicely targeted it. Think Road Runner snatching the target out from under Wile E Coyote's bomb.
This was actually the exact same problem as dodging Flak, but upside down. It took 30 seconds from the time the Flak went off until the charge burst at 25K feet. Plenty of time for the bombers to evade and be somewhere else. It took 30 seconds for the bombs to fall from 25K feet to the ship. Plenty of time for the ship to dodge and be somewhere else.
If only they'd had more pickle-barrels in Dresden!
glad there is a few people that get this joke.
Actually, the were numerous pickle barrels commonly stored on the decks of warships, also painted red, to aid in identification, whenever a crew member wanted a pickle. The problem for the bombers was that deck crews quickly learned to hide the barrels at the first sound of approaching aircraft, thus befuddling the high tech, Norden bombsight.
I served 20 years in the US Navy. All of the pickle buckets I ever saw were in the galley or in the storage hold.
I never knew about the B-17's planned anti-shipping role.
B17 was supposed to do everything. Nordern Bomb Site was supposed hit anything from 30k. Self protecting with turrets and armor. They had to over sell it in order to get orders.
@@georgemcdonough5039 Even at that, it was the most successful heavy bomber in the European theater.
The RAF's Coastal Command used them for anti-shipping/anti submarine work
@@87aggietim I'd say the B 24. It carried more bombs and bombed for longer than the U.S. The B17 could carry 12,000 ibs of bombs while the 24 could carry 24,000 ibs
@@Daylon91 They were both good bombers. Additionally, the more numerous Liberator could not take as much punishment as its famous rival, the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Although the B-17 suffered tremendously before long-range fighters such as the P-51 Mustang were introduced in large numbers, it bristled with defensive armament and could take a lot of punishment by Luftwaffe fighters.
Your videos are always a great treat on a work day. And as always the quality is on point. Thx Bismark
God bless the bottom ball turret gunners. That had to take real bravery to crawl in that thing knowing what would happen if it broke or was damaged.
I seem to remember one got crushed upon landing because the landing gear was damaged and wouldn’t deploy.
@@amanacatandhisdog8836 Yep.. if the landing gear got damaged or broke mid flight.. there was absolutely nothing they could do for that man. I think ball turret gunners only had to go out on half the missions as the other crew members because of the increased risk to themselves. I could be wrong about that though?
If you think B-17 ball turret was dangerous the B-25 belly turret was worst because it had to be hydraulically retracted in order to land...
@@robertpayne2717 I think I remember seeing that in a documentary before. Do you know if it’s true about ball turret gunners having to go on less missions than other crew members? Because of the increased risk to themselves?
@@robertpayne2717 wait i thought the b 25 belly turret didnt have to be retracted in order to land also it was remote control and it was dislike by the crew
Ah yes, more quality content. I've missed your vids. This was worth the wait.
Very good episode. It's nice to hear the real stories as opposed to repeating what everyone thinks they already know.
Jerry Struts, B-17 Flying Fortress. Read the book thirty years ago. The Japanese Destroyer captain at a navel inquiry said something like " They could not miss forever ".
Well done, thank you for this video. I enjoyed it, including the bit about the Rex.
Cheers Greg, watched your video on the Wright brothers the other day. Well done!
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles wow, I’m not really surprised to see you here, Greg, but I’m glad you are.
@@skyflier8955 Thank's Sky. I have been watching this channel forever, it's one of my favorites.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles i can’t argue with that!
Excellent video, I like the format and presentation
Thank yoi
This was the first MAH video I ever watched, randomly popped up in my RUclips recommendation a year ago in a AirBnb in Spokane. I’ve watched a lot of MAH since than. Thanks for the great work Chris.
Also in can’t be the only one who guns it slightly funny learning about an American Bomber from a German.
Love your stuff mate, you go from strength to strength. Great depth of understanding. Keep 'em coming
Your channel is quickly becoming one of my favorites. I have never heard of the Fort's development, so thankyou very much for this. Anti-shipping huh? I wonder if the Norton Bombsight would have helped at all? Moot point now I guess. She found her niche and did a superb job of it.
WOW! 133K views in less than two days. Way to go! Bismark you're a star. Outstanding video. Well researched, outstanding script and delivery.
Excellent segment, sir. As always, thanks so much for sharing.
Steve
Congrats on a very interesting program about the military zeitgeist regarding the B-17. Good and thorough job!
I've seen footage here on RUclips of an entire formation of B-17s attacking the Japanese destroyer "Yamamoto" and not a SINGLE bomb hitting the ship!
IIRC, the B-17 was provided to the UK as part of the Lend Lease materials, prior to US entry in to the war. The RAF was unimpressed with them for their strategic bombing purposes in Europe and thus handed over the larger portion of them to the Cinderella service, Coastal Command. They, and later and more effectively, the B-24 Liberator, served Coastal Command as Very Long Range (VLR) role to close the mid-Atlantic gap of aerial coverage for the convoy routes. So, the Fortress served with distinction in the role of convoy escort, submarine interdiction, and anti-shipping in the Battle of the Atlantic.
The B17 was great, but the Lancaster could carry a lot of bombs. It's night vs. day, lol.
@@neilwilson5785 very true, if the Lancaster became a day bomber it would have had more turrets, one lancaster was built as if it was a day bomber and the top turret was fitted with 2x 20mm cannons ( like the Lincoln ) and the tail gunner was fitted with 4 .50cal machine guns, as well as 2 .30cal waist gunners. It carried 6000lbs of bombs, like the b17, both were capable of both roles. However, the british were chosen for night raids because they practiced navigation before the war, and the Americans chose day bombing because they had practiced formation flying :)
@@c00kedmilk Also, the RAF did use a small number of later B-17s (the G model) in the electronic warfare role (100 Group).
The early B-17s supplied to the RAF lacked some of the essential equipment fitted to those supplied to the USAAC, specifically the Norden bombsight. Without the Norden, bombing from high altitude (which was supposed to be the B-17s unique capability) was pretty much impossible. And the RAF felt that their existing bombers or ones on the way (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) would be sufficient for their needs. Because of that, the early B-17s were little used.
@@EricIrl It's amazing that the Norden sight was ever deployed, given the American fear that it would fall into enemy hands. You obviously know what you're talking about and must have watched those USAAF bombardier training films for the Norden. Boy, a PhD in physics or maths must have been required. Complex or what? Idiots need not apply.
@@alastairbarkley6572 And there are even some who say that the Norden was not everything it was cracked up to be. It cost an absolute fortune to develop but the accuracy gained from it was not much better than that obtained using more traditional and simpler gyroscopically stabilised bomb sights.
The B-17 was designed to be a fast stratospheric bomber. It was expected that it would bomb from altitudes between 25,000 and 30,000 feet. British bombers, on the other hand, rarely bombed from above 20,000 feet, and often much lower. The Norden was designed to facilite bombing from these high latitudes, In reality, especially in the Northern European theatre of operations, trying to bomb from 30,000 feet was pointless as the target was 9 times out of 10 obscured by partial or full cloud cover.
Wow, thank you for augmenting my knowledge of B-17's. This is such an awesome channel, thank you for your work.👍
I just stumbled upon this channel, love it. Awesome stuff dude! Im subbed!
Cheers
Well researched, very interesting!
lol
I've known many pilots. The following was presented to me as a joke, it is actually just a fact.
Q: You enter a crowded ballroom/convention center/etc. There is one pilot in the room; you have never seen him before. How do you locate him?
A: Don't worry, he'll let you know.
I have no problem accepting that a pilot carrying 10 bombs would claim 11 kills.
That sounds like a very pilot thing to do
@Boreasrex11 >>> LOL....
USA#1 !! It could happen yes but bombs back then weren’t exactly accurate so the chance off all ten bombs hitting separate targets is pretty rare
AlekzHertz exactly
Boreasrex11 ok
Thanks for the tip on Riesling! Good Stuff!
Great video. Love your content. Looking forward to your next video. Thanks
Awesome video!
Thanks Justin
how was this one day ago
@@xavi.cat.4095 It was the same as it is now.
Fun fact: the Model 299 crash was caused by a pre-flight error where a very crucial step was skipped. Because of this, after the investigation the Army Air Corps created the policy of using checklists during preflight and in flight. That's how pilot checklists came into existence.
Yes, indeed. The prototype had manual control locks on all horizontal control surfaces to prevent wind damage. The test pilot forgot to disengage the locks, and immediately crashed on takeoff.
Hey Biz. i really love your videos on this stuff. I'm a big military history nerd and your channel is a true goldmine. thanks for your awesome videos and greetings from Switzerland. schönes wochenende:)
Thank you, gleichfalls ein schoenes Wochenende
Mr. Bismarck, you make very informative videos! Good job!
He talks about the flight of B17s buzzing the ship being exciting....
When I was in the military around 1980, while I was a gunner in a gun jeep on escort for a convoy, I was buzzed by 2 pairs of F104 Star Fighters at about 200 feet at around 600 mph❗‼❗😱🇺🇸
And yes I was impressed 🇺🇸👀🇺🇸
I was buzzed by 2 F4s at 200 feet and thought that was impressive. Two months later I was buzzed by a B 52 that was so low in filled the cab of my truck with exhaust. Almost needed clean underwear with that one!
Blowtorch with wings ... small ones at that.
@@rbilleaud
They didn't call it the man'd missile for nothing❗😜❗🇺🇸
@@steveb6103
At Moch 1, it was the biggest damned bullet that ever flew by my head❗😜❗😎
Talk about a crack, it damned near pitched me out of the back of the jeep.....
If I hadn't had a death grip on my mounted M60 because of a rough bouncy road.....
IT WOULD HAVE❗🇺🇸❗😜❗✈
If I recall correctly, he German Focke-Wulfe 200 Condor achieved a fair measure of success against Allied shipping in the North Atlantic, so the concept of attacking ships with a horizontal, four-engined bomber wasn't inherently unjustified. But merchant ships in a convoy may be a very different proposition from maneuvering warships.
The Condor was more successful in locating convoys than sinking ships.
Very nice job Bismark. I've liked all your videos that I have seen .Thanks.
I had to laugh at your comment about Curtis LeMay’s German level of accuracy in locating the Italian ocean liner. General LeMay grew up in German Village, Columbus, Ohio. Obviously his emphasis on accuracy was developed and encouraged by his German neighbors. I know because I grew up there too. General LeMay was, of course, a neighborhood hero. I was honored to learn we both attended Beck St. School, played in Schiller Park and drank good German beer at the local Biergarten (in different eras obviously). Several of my school friends were the children of Wehrmacht vets, who’d moved from Germany to Columbus in the years following WW2.
No nation built a level bomber that could hit a moving surface ship. The closest was the B-24 ( often built by Ford ). The Navy so jealously guarded the mission that the problem wasn't obvious until 1942.
Don't the Do-217 and He-111 that were retrofitted for the FX-1400 technically count?
Battleship Roma..
Yes, the Navy was a cauldron of obfuscation but it was the Army claims which were far from the mark, as it were. The Battle of Midway was followed by Army claims to have sunk many ships and a Collin Kelly fabrication that rolls eyes today. The US could use a hero (it seems addicted) but a fabrication of this size is a little much. The only way a level bomber flying at 24,000 ft. could hit a ship is with the cooperation of the captain.
guided bombs are cheating
/s
B-24 very under appreciated plane, maybe even more capable then the B-17
the first 19 minutes made me want my own B-17 now. Its like a 19 min advertisement until reality hit home. If it achieved what the interwar years hinted at, this would be the perfect machine.
Your videos have been the most comprehensive and informative series I have ever seen on the history of military aviation! Thoroughly researched and detailed, I have learned much in each video I watch. When I was an early teenager I built and painted many model aircraft my father ordered for me in the mail, including the B-17 Flying Fortress in this video, the Avro Lancaster and Manchester bombers and a Heinkel He-177 bomber. But my favorite were the fighters and interceptors! I had eighteen various planes total from each major country during the war, but primarily US and German planes which always had the largest selection available that were in stock. Some planes took a lot of time to get as they were constantly sold out, often coming from overseas distributors, and in particular a Japanese Nakajima Ki-84 which took several months to obtain from Japan and ship to the US. It and a Mitsubishi A6M Zero were the only two Japanese planes I built, and the instructions were in Japanese! Nevertheless I used the intuition and skills I had been developing building my models and built them perfectly. The Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik was the only Soviet plane typically available , so I built that one as well.
Building model airplanes, and models in general, was very popular when I was a growing up and I was fortunate to have a father who encouraged me to do so, and most importantly financed the hobby! My favorite models were the Junkers JU 87 because of it's gull wing design, the P-38 Lightning also because of it's unique design, and of course, the Messerschmitt Me 262! I actually got to observe an Me 262 once at a "Wings of Freedom" air show in Texas, seeing it take off, fly around the airfield for about fifteen minutes and then land! The sound of the engines (despite not being original) I will remember the rest of my life when the pilot made a very low pass nearly over the spectators and tilted the plane extremely so we could get a good view! It remains the most dramatic realization of something I had only fantasized about in my youth, now manifest before me as if ripped from my own childhood memories! Once the plane landed, the spectators were allowed to come close and take photos, talk to the pilot, and inspect the aircraft. I could touch it with my own hand and smell the hot engines, listening to the pops and crackles as they cooled down! It was surreal!
I displayed all of my models from the ceiling of my room suspended on fishing line, a few I hung in tilted angles as if banking and maneuvering in dogfights. The Stuka, of course, I hung in a dive position as it was intended. I would lie on my bed and stare at them above me every night, imagining myself as one of the pilots maneuvering to shoot the other out of the sky. I had several books on WW2 military aircraft for reference in painting the models accurately, and they did have basic information on each notable plane of the war, but unfortunately this was in the late 1970's and early 80's so video options were limited except for an occasional documentary on the Public Broadcasting Service that, unfortunately, contained little technical or operational information about the planes themselves. Rather, they focused on stories of dogfights and missions told by the veteran pilots and crews, and were primarily focused on the US and British experience in the war. I do remember a single program which featured interviews with Adolph Galland and Erich Hartmann specifically from the German perspective, but again, virtually no technical information on the planes themselves!
So I cannot express how much I appreciate the technical and operational information you have provided in your videos, and of a depth and quality I have never seen before in any documentary or television series. They have stirred that idealistic boy within me again that spent many, many hours assembling and painting some of the finest military aircraft of the war, enchanted by the sheer beauty and elegance of their designs and the fire they ignited in my imagination! Before this digital age of shortened attention spans and historical indifference I remember a childhood when dexterity, patience and attention to detail were rewarded with beautiful creations that made one proud of their accomplishment. Thanks again for your wonderful work and I will be a future subscriber from now on and considering becoming a enthusiast to provide some financial support for such quality work.
🛩🛬✈
Overall, a great video. I have learned a lot about both B-17s and B-24s - and how they were used, both in sea and land attacks. And from contributions from people in the comments section, there is a lot of useful information there, as well. Keep up the good work!
It's sad how many people fall into the trap of negligence because "it never happened before." It's almost always the vigilance they are abandoning that made it that way and would keep it that way.
People astoundingly use that thought process they think of as logic all the time. I take home and auto claim calls for a major insurance company. I hear all the time that reducing auto coverage to save money is ok, because "I've been drinking for [plug in your favorite number here] and never had an accident. I'm not going to start now." Next favorite complaint is their premium should go down each year as their car gets older and they shouldn't have to pay for other peoples mistakes. SMH. I love my job. I love my job.
I really like the 1930s B-17 aesthetic. Looks really fine.
BRAVO!!! Great video about limited capacity against shipping....To Bob Jones, I had the privelege of flying aboard the now ill-fated Collings Foundation "909".
It was an unforgettable experience. I too stood in the top hatch, with my head in the slipstream, slightly behind thise 4 roaring Recips...WHOA!!! nothing can ever duplicate that! Thoughts and prayers to those injured and lost on 909...she was a great ship.
Fantastic episode. Thank you!
My father was a B-24 Navigator in the 15th AF 454th BG 737th Sq. I asked him how accurate high level bombing was and he said within 1000 feet of the target point. Needless to say that's not a good CEP for anti-shipping missions
This was mostly an operations problem, in testing the Norden bombsight had a cep of 75 feet. Unfortunately the real world is not a testing range...
Another thing the B-17 could not do,that it was hyped that it could, was defend itself
independently from attacking enemy fighters. Nope, it still needed help from the little guys
to fight off all those FW-190's and BF-109's
Great video, I had no idea of its original role. Thank you.
You show an outstanding knowledge of both the history of the US as well as the environmental aspects of how to develop an air corp and the constant back and forth between the Army and the Navy. Many folks have no idea who Billy Mitchell was anymore than they know the role Doolittle played in this same role.
Loved your presentation on the B-17. Also enjoyed you sense of humor in the narration. My dad was a B-24 pilot in WWII. Have you investigated her role?
Will make a video on the B-24 eventually :)
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Thank you.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory have you done a vid on the overall effectiveness of lack of effectiveness of the strategic bombing campaign as a whole? I understand there's some controversy there. I've read some totally contradictory things on the subject
@@jagsdomain203 And without war there is no oil Or so it would seem.
Mein dad was alzo on ze war, he died unfortunately. He fell of a Treblinka II guardtower.
They got a tremendous amount of use out of B-17's in the South Pacific in the early part of WWII as reconnaissance aircraft. The impression I have - is that rather than concentrate them and just be able to bomb one target - because that is about all the B-17's they had - they sent them all over looking at things to see what was going on. It was a B-17 that first spotted the Runway being built on Guadalcanal.
While they did see some usage as bombers B-24's had more range - and thus were more popular in the Pacific. The other thing was that the B-17's they had their at the start - were all worn out.
One other thing was that because Japanese fighters were lightly armed - it was fairly difficult for them to bring down a B-17. It wasn't that they couldn't do it - it's just that they often had to really work at it.
The Hiei had suffered a steering hit during the first night of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. They had to manually steer the ship from the area of the rudder but - the compartment flooded and they couldn't do that. So - the Hiei, while not initially that badly damaged - couldn't get away and was subjected to repeated air attacks by different aircraft until she eventually sank.
Four engine bombers did however play a very important and effective role in Anti-Submarine Warfare - though these were mostly B-24's - again because of their range. Once they had radar - these aircraft could, in night attacks on submarines, actually turn off their engines and glide down right onto the submarine - at which time they'd turn on this Lee Light they had to light it up and start their engines, dropping depth charges right next to he sub. They sank a lot of U-Boats in the Bay of Biscay.
.
@bob smith -- the statistics show that the U-boat arm was largely destroy in the Bay of Biscay. For years the USN put out that the U-boats were defeated in the mid-Atlantic. The stats say otherwise. The U-boat losses in the BoB were not witnessed by Germans. They went down solo. Whereas their mid-Atlantic losses were usually witnessed as a wolf pack had been assembled. All during the Cold War the USN // RN did not want the Soviets to realize that we were usually picking off U-boats solo... that it was Radar not Sonar that was their doom.
This the first article or your i have seen and I really enjoyed your point of view referencing the B-17s . its crazy how technology has helped aircrews have the ability to engage surface based targets from a considerably safer distance and allows almost any aircraft to be so much more deadly than any of the power house aircraft from just 50 or 60 years ago. keep up the interesting articles.
Excellent. It's hard to provide a story from WW2, or the lead up to it, that rings as original and surprising to military history buffs. But this one really succeeds.
In WWII executives from the automobile industry were sent to the aircraft manufacturers to show them how to build airplanes. And aircraft production didn't take off until the aircraft manufacturers began using the manufacturing practices from the automobile industry.
In the book 'Freedom's Forge' by Arthur Herman, there are descriptions of how appalled the auto execs were when they saw how airplanes were being made. They then made a factory at Willow Creek that built B-24's the same way they built cars. Willow Creek was one of the major success stories of industrial production during WWII.
Intended or not, you just got to love the pun: "And aircraft production didn't take off until..."!!! 🤣👍
I worked at Boeing for 19 years. I once came across a study that was done at the end of the war on how Boeing built the B 17. In reading the study I never saw anything about the auto industry telling them how to build airplanes. They did use alot of their ideas.
. I grew up in Detwa' [Detroit] and from that perspective, the automotive industry employed about half the "engineering" this country had in 1939; if not more. There really weren't that many complex machines being made in 1939. [And I know the war didn't start for America til '41, but they were preparing for it by then.]
. Anyway, fast forward to 1950, 1960 and Detroit has the highest per capita income in the USoA. Henry Ford paid people good money for good work. Shame they let Detwa' go down as far as they have.
Colin Campbell Willow Run!
The US was the only nation building military vehicles at a mass production scale inWW2.
One of my favorite WW2 aircraft. A beautiful plane, not just bomber but aircraft in general. Shame they never gave it the engines it deserved. Nice video with tons of vintage footage.
Four Packard Merlins ?
Bismarck ich liebe deine Videos xD
Sind immer sehr bildend und Wortschatz-erweiternd
I must be honest here. This is the first video by this fellow that I've seen. And within the first 30 seconds I was not liking him much, but I listened a bit more. By the end of 5 minutes I was completely in. He is very well researched, knows his history and has exceptional vocabulary. No stammering or use of the dreaded "like" in every other sentence. Nor is the absurd use of "literally" incorrectly used rather than actually. That aside this presentation was totally impartial. It was evident that he was German yet all that mattered were the facts and the historical perspective and evidence, which were beautifully and seamlessly presented. I congratulate you sir on an excellent research presentation. Well done. I look forward to others.
8:48 ive been an aficionado of the b-17 for decades, and i had no idea the entire nose cone could rotate like that!!! wow!
Only on a prototype or very early model, possibly pre-production. I think the side blisters lasted longer, but they also were dropped.
@@donjones4719 the blisters were dropped with the c model
B34? As this is the most bad ass bomber in WT I wouldnt mind you talking about it's real life performance.
The B34 is still kicking major ass in WT eh? Nice to know its not been nerfed into the ground yet. Was my favorite bomber when I still played...
Broken* 510 km at 2.7
You probably haven't played the game since months because bombers are SL/RP farms for fighters.
This channel is so consistently excellent!
An excellent review- thank you
13:34 Exactly no one surprised that German wine is most "efficient."
Super video as always! The B17 was actually preferred for reconnaissance in the Pacific. The Fort was relatively fast, high flying, and heavily armed and armored. As a result, they had more than a fair chance to survive against a Japanese CAP. This was not the case with the PBY, which was very slow and lightly armed and armored. The Cat was easy money for Japanese fighters. The PBY crews knew this and had a joke - " Have spotted enemy fleet. Please notify next of kin".
Read up on ol' 666 -- it even has its own YT video.
My granddad was a gunner in PBY in pacific. He crashed 3 times I believe, although he would never talk to us in detail about it. Once he got home, he never ever flew again... ever. Must have been scary as shit.
Indeed, heavy bombers came into their own in maritime use as long range scouts.
Well done.
Subscribed.
great videos as always
The B-17 is the most beautiful plane ever built.
This is what I have always heard.
Sorry, but I have to disagree
He 177 wants a word with you
Congratulations on your sponsorship
Cheers :)
You will most assuredly reach your goals with the High Quality Production Standards you follow... Always a treat ...Thanks fer sharing...!...
Always interesting, thank you.
The anti-shipping role of the B-17 was really a subterfuge by the USAAC to get Congress to fund a four engine strategic bomber. The B-17 was never designed to meet the AS role.
source?
@@cambium0 The History Channel's show Wings.
@Jim Rinkenberger. You are absolutely correct! I believe Martin Caiden wrote in one of his books about the internecine fight with the Navy regarding the coastal defence roll. The Army had the roll of coastal artillery and wanted to expand their roll. The idea was to sell the B-17 as a mobile coastal artillery and that's where the name, "Flying Fortress" came from.
It had nothing to do with the number of defensive guns on the bomber, as at that time, before the war started, there were not many guns installed, and mostly 30 caliber light guns at that. This was all to get funding for the strategic bomber that the AAC wanted but congress would not allocate, as with no war, there was no need for a strategic bomber.
The origin of the B-17's name is an obscure fact, usually attributed to the later addition of many turrets and machine guns.
The inter-service rivalry still exists and the USAF is the biggest offender. They have refused to allow the Army to use fixed-wing Aircraft to provide their own close air support as the Marine Corps does (with the cooperation, participantion and assistance of the U.S. Navy).
The National Defense act of 1947, which created the Air Force as a separate branch, specifically prohibited the Army from having fixed wing combat air craft. They can have rotatory wing combat aircraft but all fixed wing must be for transport only.
@@johnharris6655 That isn't correct. The NDA only establishes the independent existence of the Air Force, but doesn't explicitly prevent the Army from operating armed fixed wing aircraft. Instead the SecDef James Forrestal persuaded the Army to give up acquiring and operating such aircraft in return for the USAF pledge to provide air support, and this was codified as the Key West Agreement in 1948. The hindrance is political, not legal.
I think a great series could be made about the organisational structures of air forces/air corps and how the pioneers continually adjusted their groupings for operational efficacy.
e.g. Royal Air Corps -> Royal Air Force -> divisions into Fighter Command, Bomber Command, Coastal Command. Group, Wing, Squadron formations, etc
Terrific video. Very informative and entertaining.
It's alleged (by Martin Caidin in his 1960's era book about the B-17) that the name "Flying Fortress" was bestowed on the airplane because of it's initial role as a coastal defense asset, and not because of it's defensive armament. I've never found another source on the B-17 which agrees with this, but it makes sense given the doctrine at the time.
your bookshelves: books
my bookshelves: boxes of unbuilt model airplanes
Mine: half build model planes and tanks
Everybody has a reason for bookshelves . I have most of his print sources clogging up my shelves and piling up on the floor in front of the shelves . The books pictured in his shelves are mostly printed in the last 10 years, and are excellent references. Not a single "Picture Book" coffee table / Barnes & Noble edition in the batch.
Loved the vid
I was fooled at the beginning as I had wrongly guessed the failing of the B-17 would be its inability to defend itself against enemy fighters without friendly fighter escort. Great video!
B-52: Intended target sunk. Crater still visible.
Grid square removed
Sea still absent.
@15:08 ... and this makes the German in me so happy, he was perfectly accurate... I love this one!
That just made my day !!
Loved it from start to finish.
More history on my favorite aircraft. Thank you.
USS Macon airship and here fighters had the original role of patrolling the Pacific. USS Akron patrolled the Atlantic. Both airships went down in the sea.
The importance of land-based planes at the Battle of Midway is often overlooked. Although they scored no hits, they forced the Japanese into evasive actions and delayed their ability to launch, allowing the American carrier-based planes to catch them with their decks loaded.
Great point.
They also got the Japanese to load anti-ground bombs and when the Carriers were spotted, the Japanese had to spend a lot of time changing bombs then getting caught with bombs everywhere when the US stuck.
I had a 30 minute ride at the WWII WEEKEND airshow in Lancaster, Pa ,the B-17 G Yankee Lady, quite the thrill!
Great presentation. Thanks!
18:55 From my experience as War Thunder player, using B-17 to destroy a destroyer ship from the height of 12,000ft is difficult for me, I need to drop to at least 8,000ft to get a reliable hit.
The German Do 217 is much more suitable for anti-shipping mission with its glorious 1000kg bombs & its dive bombing capability.
Sure. But there is the old American way "quantity above quality " . 😅
@@jorgschimmer8213 Isn't it actually, "quantity is a quality of its own"?
@@toransilverman . Yes. Of course. 😉
@@toransilverman Most Europeans don't know their own history...
@@adumbedgyname7158this guys European, lindybeige is European, David Fletcher is European... ok ameraboo.
Very interesting Video, Curtis LeMay could do with his story aired.
Your plant needs water.
Cheers
Excellent video...and an Excellent channel. I’m glad I found it
Thank you very much
sehr intressanter und gut recherchierter "Artikel". Da ist sehr viel Arbeit dahinter, und das sieht man.
Le great video. Very nice to see SOMEONE other then me, like history.
The B-17 WAS a "between the wars" design. The changes required to make it a successful bomber in WWII were such that, aside from the wings, it was a very different aircraft and probably should have merited a different "B" number.
Completely false. The wing design was unchanged. The structure was stiffened here and there. The empennage was redesigned. The armament layout was changed. The engines were upgraded. But it was the same airplane. I think the USAAF knew what they were doing.
@@ultrametric9317 Don't understand the "completely false" comment. You essentially said the same thing Stephen Gardiner said - most everything but the wing was changed.
@@tomveatch2994 but these were all subtle modifications over time, not a drastic rebuild. If the B-17G is a different plane from the early models, then the Spitfire Mk XIV should not be called a Spitfire
@@ultrametric9317
I don't know if it merited a different "B" number, but it certainly underwent major changes. The new empennage and ventral fin was a major change. Addition of the power turrets was a major change, went from minimal defensive capability to robust all-around defensive capability.
Great informative video
Thank you Bismark
Re "the Haruna", 19:58, I remember having to learn the poem (in 2nd grade 1942), about the heroism of Capt Colin Kelly who flew his plane down the smokestack of the Haruna sinking her. and years later learning it never happened. I was disillusioned. Then later still learning about the great need of "patriotic morale building material" at the time!!
Nice vid...my grandfather flew B-17's in late 44-45 (right up to the end of the war).
My father flew on B-25's in the Pacific.
I'm a B-17 nut. Your video was very well done. Danke :)
An excellent excursus as we have become accustomed to enjoy from you. The evidence suggests that you do a great deal of hard, painstaking research and - to my enormous satisfaction - you also seem to be EDITING your work, BEFORE presenting it to the public. Such thing is, alas, still rather uncommon; there are far too many individuals out there in the 'ether', who think that all they need is some dexterity with electronic widgets, to be successful videographers. Enough said.
Once more, a resounding BRAVO! for your efforts and thanks very much for offering us some intelligent brain stimulation. Cheers.