Ahhh yes, it's "super secret" also known as the Pierre Sprey gambit. "I totally designed the A10 and the F15, but my name isn't on any documentation because it's classified which is why I'm telling you about it."
20:00 Remember: the atomic bomb had a barometric fuse that would cause the bomb to detonate at a predetermined height. You HAD to DISARM the bomb before LANDING, or you would vaporize a chunk of Tinian and probably kill most everyone on the island!
Did it really have no means of final arming on release? I'm no engineer, but I'd've thought that it would have something like a lanyard attached to the plane to stop it from detonating while still attached.
@@Delta_Hotel My specific reference if not clear was to the use of the Lancaster. With no way to access the bomb bay, the only way to arm the bomb would be to activate a time delayed barometric fuse. Then the only way to go back to base in the event of an aborted mission would be to throw the bomb into the ocean. So yes, completely impractical.
As a former member of the Royal Air Force I am pleased to find your clear and accurate video relating to the facts rather than numerous dubious speculations offered by a certain other You Tube content provider. Many many years ago I was privileged to actual work on and within the last UK based Lancaster - then known as "The City of Lincoln" and it was/is a truly great aircraft based on its achievements within the roles which it undertook. When I recently came across the claim about it being not just capable but also "standing by and ready" to carry out the B-29 Atomic bomb missions I was bemused if not totally amazed that anyone could believe it to have a shred of reality. Your video very eloquently addresses those claims and debunks them by actually providing evidence to support your logic and reasons - Thank you
Felton has sucked people into his channel through sensationalised videos about weird Nazi stuff, be it the technology or weird occult things they got up to. So once people started salivating at that, their critical thinking processes shut down.
Are you saying the Lincoln could NOT have achieved it You do know the RAF had bases in Iraq Pakistan India, Malaya Borneo and Hong Kong Not one plane touching US territory Unlikely granted impossible NO
As a Brit I naturally love the Lancaster but there is no doubting the B29 was a new generation of bomber and I just cannot see how the Lanc would have the range, speed and capacity to carry out the atomic attacks.
Canadian here. 30 years in the RCAF. I,ve seen both in real life. The Lanc was great, but the B-29 was head and shoulder above the rest. Pressurized, huge bomb load, long range, capable of 30000 feet. Teething problem, sure. The end of the piston era, yes.
What strikes me as odd is Felton’s videos are normally fairly free of national biases. I can only assume his motivations with the video were solely financial.
@@RealmCenter40 I might have caught a couple bad ones but I sensed bias. OK, national pride is one thing but he had many facts wrong as well. That's why I stopped watching his channel.
@@PappyGunn you got it. Unless I'm mistaken, the Lanc was basically a development of an early/mid 30's plane in design. The 29 was a completely new aircraft to be built as state of the art (and in a few years yet). No wonder it had some teething problems and, IIRC, was the most expensive single project of WWII. The Lanc was a great plane for what it was., without doubt, but is wasn't state of the art by mid/late war. It's not even fair to try and compare the two.
I wrote my Ph.D Thesis about the politics of British Strategic bombing in WWII. I spent a great deal of time in the Public Records Office (UK National Archives). There was absolutely nothing there about this mythical Lancaster force. Yes I did look at Tiger Force too. Oh, I did read the files that mentioned Leonard Cheshire's participation as an official observer I have occasionally pointed out factual errors on his video's comments. He has never replied, nor added any correction. Good job here though. Thank you
Not surprising that he hasn't responded. Felton often has glaring issues with his videos that even casual history fans can spot from a mile away, I've also seen comments online about how a lot of his work is copied off places like Wikipedia or plagiarized from others.
I happened to come across MFP's video on "black Lancasters" a few days ago and I just now finished watching your own "rebuttal" video of MFP's contentions. I've always appreciated the depth of your research, your personal technical savvy, and-last but not least-your calm, no-frills style. I believe your video is a valuable contribution to the historical record. I also think MFP's one was an ill-conceived work of fiction that he concocted while he was having a jingoistic day, wearing a Churchill peacoat and playing "Rule Britannia" real loud on his stereo.
I normally have regard for MFP, but not this time. There was NEVER anything I have seen that suggests a `Lancaster` stand-in. The Lancaster had the lifting capability, but not the range nor the altitude capability. If this is true then MFP should produce the documents. If not. take the video DOWN. Mark Felton, you produced a lemon. Make lemonade or an apology....
I share the sentiment but not the passion haha. I like Felton’s videos but this was him putting pride in an aircraft or perhaps country over facts. Great vids by the way.
In newspapering, we would call your report a knockdown story, ie, a factual story that refutes a previous ill-sourced story by a competitor. Yours is a paragon of the genre, per video. Well done!
I'm a huge Lancaster fan , and have read countless books on the subject. When I saw Mark Felton's video on this subject , I was disappointed as I knew this was complete nonsense. I even called him out on his comments to ask him to provide his sources . No answer.... I once was a fan of his videos , but after that one ,I avoid his products . I no longer have any faith in his stories
Interesting. I just watched his Finnish-Soviet War video and quite a few commenters raised errors, something I haven't seen very often. I too raised concerns with a video on the Pacific War by posting a comment and he did not reply, despite my comment being respectful, considered and measured.
@@ericadams3428 I've noticed this rather soon in his content, if it wasn't simply trying to ride coattails of trendy subjects/channels Needless to say: I quit watching his channel pretty quickly
@@montecarlo1651 Same here, his video on the IJN submarine campaign on the east coast of Australia was utterly woeful, despite providing polite corrections and exhaustive directions to first person source materials, no reply was received, nor and of far greater importance, were any corrections ever made to his wholesale distortions and omission of many well-known historic facts. The inherent disrespect for and outright erasure of the sacrifices of the fallen which this type of historic stewardship, that shamelessly and solely prioritises individual pecuniary interests, is an outrageous disgrace and its insult indeed only compounded by his fawning and patently false claims to the contrary. Felton likes history, but the ruthless inflation of his own personal ego is of far greater priority to himself regardless of the memory of other's ancestors.
@@ericadams3428 Its unfortunate because i used to like that channel. I could forgive some minor inaccuracy if it was committed unintentionally but that video was way over the line.
I fear that for volume of content and sensational headlines the level of historical accuracy is becoming strained in some quarters - to the extent I find myself grinding my teeth in exasperation as I know they could do so much better! Thank you Greg for keeping the faith - you may not get as many views as a result - but you are so greatly appreciated!!
This wasn't the worst Mark Felton has claimed. He tends to get things wrong often. But the worst thing is that he plagiarizes his content. He a shameless thief.
Well, I'll put it more bluntly. His channel exists only to enrich his wallet and his ego. As a source of educational content, it has zero credibility. He's a businessman, not an historian.
@@kelvinh8327 Many doctors in many fields have lost their doctorates over the years. Do you know why? Because ethics mean more than any book or any piece of paper. Yes, ethics do matter, even in 2022.
I'm not an aviator or sailor but a humble soldier. All our tanks had either bright (almost neon-like) green or white paint on the inside of our tanks to assist with seeing inside a dark, buttoned up tank or operating at night. I think the white in the cockpit would reflect instead of absorbing solar heating, just like the difference between white concrete and black asphalt on a hot day. The tops of our tanks in Iraq would get so hot sitting in the sun. Sometimes we couldn't tactically get into shade and we'd need gloves to keep from burning our hands. Any bottles of water put in the roof would almost instantly be too hot to drink.
Greg is ceding the point about paint color because (I think) there are so many other problems with MFP as to be silly. I have read that the A-12/SR-71 were painted black because black radiates heat better than other colors and friction buildup of heat was a very big issue with those planes. Reading the comments it appears that MFP it’s as interested in factual accuracy or citing source material.
The B-29 that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki (Bockscar) spent a bunch of time circling around waiting to meet up with the instrument and camera planes (some of which didn't make the rendezvous). It then headed to Kokura, it's primary target, and flew over the city three times looking for a break in the clouds. It then headed to it's secondary target, Nagasaki. When they got there, they started to worry about fuel... they actually had more than enough, it's just that there was a problem with the fuel pump in one of the tanks and they couldn't get it to turn on. Point being that the B-29 had some serious range.
@@dmunro9076 Absolutely right on. I served on Okinawa in the late 50s and early 60s as a Sea Bee. I visited the air base where Bock's car landed low on fuel. There was a plaque there.
@@dmunro9076 Yep. The fuel pump problem was detected in preflight but it was decided to continue rather than delay to fix or swap planes. There were a number of problems on that mission. Wouldn't have happened with Tibbets in charge...
Tough spot so disarm the bomb or not if the fuel pump goes bad? I'd leave it armed and go down with the plane based on how the Japanese treatment was of allied service men
@@danpatterson8009 Maybe, but they were all keyed up for this mission and they might have all made the same choices. The reality is that this history is already written and is what it was.
One irony is that as expensive as the Manhattan Project was, it was, in fact, not the most expensive project of World War II. The most expensive project was, of course, the B-29. And as I recall, it wasn't a small amount by which the B-29 was more expensive. The guy who lived across the road from me when I was a kid was a former B-29 pilot who flew in WWII from the Marianas. After I left home, my parents had a decent amount to do with him - his wife had died and he was lonely. They'd take him out to lunch every month or so in the weekend. It was clear that being a B-29 bomber pilot haunted him. It was massively formative for him. You think about those missions - way up high, hours and hours before you got to your target, hours and hours on the way back. As big as the B-29 was, you're just a speck in the sky over thousands of miles of largely empty ocean. And the aircraft were on the edge of possible technology, so they broke, a lot. And most of these people were young men in their 20s.
That picture at 31:18 shows a Lanc the RAF developed with a gigantic saddle tank that ran the length of the top of the plane. This was done to give the plane the range to bomb Japan. The tank was so large that it completely changed the appearance of the plane and eliminated the dorsal turret. The weight of all that extra fuel also drastically reduced the bomb load. The design was completely mad and never got beyond the prototype.
7 years ago I would have donated large amounts. I look forward to all your work. I guess it's bad luck for us both. I'm living on the edge now so your work is on point, accurate ,and a joy to watch. Thanks.
This was extremely interesting. I remember watching the MFP video in question and finding it interesting as well. I much prefer knowing the truth however and you have very thoroughly investigated it and presented it, thank you!
I quite enjoy the approach you've taken in this video. You've shot the horse, then you've gone and repeatedly beaten the dead horse over and over again so it doesn't even look like a horse anymore.
I find I'm a bit annoyed myself. Honest mistakes are one thing and even the best historians make them. Considering the quantity and magnitude of mistakes in the Felton vid, I don't think they qualify has honest.
My dad retired from the Air Force from the 55th Wing at Offutt AFB back in 1997. As a retirement gift he received a piece of the wooden block flooring used in the factory that built the Silverplate bombers. They had turned the factory into a large MWR facility and had removed the old flooring.
I saw the Mark Felton Production, big fan of most of his work, and this one seemed "odd". I can see why the Lancaster early would have been considered due to its large bomb bay but it flew much lower than even the B-17 and was so slow actually dropping the atomic bomb would have been a suicide mission for the crew. The Enola Gay and Boxcar dropped from a high elevation, the bomb had a parachute to slow it (er, seems it didn't. OOPS!), and the B-29 top speed was what ever they did flying away. (did they have a nitro boost on them?) The blast still shook the planes. In this case Mr Felton's claim that mere pride required the use of an American plane is sad and discrediting of his other worthy work.
There's nothing like a bit of USA-Brit banter. Unless you're deluded, the B-29 was the girl for the job. I doubt there'd have been any difficulty in recruiting aircrew for an extremely dangerous mission from either the USAAF or the RAF, though the latter must be been very fatigued by that point. The 1944/early 1945 raids over Germany weren't milk runs.
the bombs had no parachute, they where free falling thats why the special escape maneuver was needed, and even then the shockwave shuck the plane quite a bit
I feel the need to mention my 98 year old, and still stunningly active, father is a USAAF veteran who trained for the B-29. He was support rather than flight and as a child I would read the B-29 maintenance manual he brought home.
I don't know, I feel like this a good example of the flaws with his work. He often takes things that were considered or mentioned, even if only barely, and acts like it was some sort of fully planed or staffed operation that almost happened. Does it pretty often.
HA HA ha Greg has many times has done similar E.G/ Ignored WW2 tests on his beloved P47 , Said that Captain Eric Brown did not know what he was talking about when Brown was one of the team that tested the bloody thing
I finished my MA in history with a capstone essay on the Granville Raid in 45’. I examined it’s causality which entailed a great deal of research from first hand accounts on the Channel Islands to official reports from ULTRA and the American National Archives. Mark Felton had done a video on the raid and ironically inspired me to research it for my capstone. I was sort of ashamed to learn that plenty of inconsistencies are apparent in that video that he did, titled “Hitler’s Sea Wolves”. Some claims that he puts forward I found zero evidence for in either primary or secondary sources. Being clear, I don’t expect absolute ironclad evidence for a RUclips video, but if MF claims he is a historian, this showing doesn’t endear me to his “real” work. It is just entertainment though I suppose. While I am not an expert on Lancasters, the Manhattan Project or the bomb, I am glad to see that some other experts are pointing out inconsistencies with his videos. Well done.
I think it runs far deeper than that and I don't believe that anyone, least of all someone who publicly attempts to afford himself accreditation as an expert by claiming to be a professional historian, has the right to take liberties with the stewardship of history in any regard, least of all for entertainment or even worse, for financial gain which is akin to grave-robbing in terms of such a subject as military history. I stated looking into him after viewing Felton's video on the IJN submarine campaign on the east coast of Australia, which was utterly woeful, despite providing polite corrections and exhaustive directions to first person source materials, no reply was received, nor and of far greater importance, were any corrections ever made to his wholesale distortions and omission of many well-known historic facts. My enquiries showed that he indeed has a long history of inherent disrespect for and outright erasure of the sacrifices of the fallen which this type of historic stewardship, that shamelessly and solely prioritises individual pecuniary interests through lazy or non-existent research in preference for sensationalism results in. However, for him to persist in this manner after having the shortcomings of this conduct drawn to his attention elevates this to an outrageously disrespectful disgrace, and its insult is indeed only compounded by his fawning and patently false claims to the contrary. Felton likes history, but the ruthless inflation of his own personal ego is of far greater and in fact singular priority to himself regardless of and all-too-often at the sacrifice of the memory and accurate record of other people's ancestors.
Well done , great job clearing up this misconception of MFP. I can't believe he went there and in my opinion his credibility has suffered as a result of him doing so.
@@quaver1239 Felton is a proven serial plagiarist, many of the 'scripts' of his videos are taken verbatim from and without any credit to the intellectual property of actual genuine historians, even more directly from Wikipedia which itself attests strongly to both their credibilty and political biases to say nothing of his own abject laziness. The sycophants who post the most nauseatingly slavish and servile tributes under his videos claiming that he is the pre-eminent expert on military history only reiterate the truth that the vast majority of the general public are themselves abject imbeciles coddled within a self-delusional fog of classic Dunning-Kruger effect.
The Royal Navy did make a limited return to the Pacific in 1943. The US Navy was down to one operating carrier (USS Saratoga) while waiting for the new Essex class carriers to arrive. The Royal Navy obliged by sending HMS Victorious operating under the name USS Robin. The US Navy badly needed an extra flight deck, while the Royal Navy wanted to learn about US Navy flight operations. The pilots would practice flying off and landing on either flight deck. The US pilots liked the Robin because they could get a rum issue, the British pilots liked the Saratoga because they could get ice cream.
@@SpiritOfMontgomery It was a logistics nightmare, extending that supply chain all the way back to Britain, and too much stuff was incompatible with the US supply chain. It was an ego fleet. It was useful to the war effort, but cost more than Britain could afford.
Great video. I stopped watching MFP over a year ago after I had watched enough of the videos to realize most were just sensationalist or else speculative. A lot of the history/military/hardware channels on youtube seem to be tied in one way or the other with the wargaming community, such as WOT, War Thunder, etc, and while its great a new generation is being exposed to the history and is interested, the downside is a lot of the fanboyism and speculative stuff from the games is blurring into the actual history now.
Pretty much the same for me. I gave up on that channel when I realised that they were presenting their videos as hard facts without sources and without any critical discussion of conflicting sources. The M8 Greyhound vs King Tiger 1944 video is a good example of this. His sources are a reddit post and a tank wiki. There is no discussion about the plausibility of that account, the other conflicting accounts, nor the fact that there is no surviving record of Tiger II tanks in that area for the event. The video is just presented as cold hard facts.
I'm not sure how much gaming has got to do with it, there are plenty of reasons someone might be biased towards an unrealistic view of a particular machine - or just biased towards exciting sensationalist stories for that matter - which don't require that they be a gamer. Besides, Felton's channel doesn't have direct connections to gaming, does it?
@@ollimoore He's frequently sponsored by the studios that produce World of Tanks/Warships and Warthunder. Credit where its due, he does regularly discuss obscure subjects I've been unaware of, unfortunately when he covers something I am familiar with I can spot the frequent glaring errors, bassically his channel is only good as a jumping off point when something peaks my interest.
I’m British. Born in ‘72. My grandfather served in the RAF during WWII (an electrician on Beaufighters, mostly). I’m afraid the MFP story is very attractive to believers of our national myth. Furthermore, it is a legacy of a sentiment my mother’s generation had about brash, overconfident Americans, overloaded with cash, but short on ingenuity. That myth of ours consists of many threads: Barnes Wallis, the TSR-2, and the Vulcan. All things to be rightly proud of, but over-emphasised and given a significance way beyond their actual impact. I’m proud of my grandfather’s generation, but I can’t stand this insecurity we have as a nation. Anyhow, thanks for this video, your diligence, expertise, and humility! Oh, and that marvellous Beaufighter video (both the talk about the aircraft, and the trip to the kit manufacturer!).
I wouldn't say it's just a British mindset. I've spoken to enough people from all over to hear just how proud people are to talk about the heroes of their nation. I was speaking with some Poles the other week, and they talked how Rurik of Kievan Rus was afraid of going into Poland because of how mighty warriors they were. There's not even that concrete proof of Rurik actually existing, and what he thought. The word "Slave" comes from the word "Slav" after all the slave raids into slavic lands, so it's unlikely there was anything to be particularly scared of in war. Every culture acts in a certain way due to it's history. Like with the example above, Eastern Europeans are naturally quite insular from all the constant conflict for millenia, but also desperate to prove themselves in prestige and fight for their national identity. Probably with British people it'll be the cultural belief in their superiority as the greatest empire and as a civilising force, with then rapid downfall after the Great war and being overtaken by the rest of the world. After being the best for probably two centuries, it's hard to admit that maybe others just ended up doing things better, that they aren't taking shortcuts. It's just how people work, always have, and always will do. And yea, stories like MFP do are incredibly popular. I once thought reenactors know a lot about history, but they're passionate and do it for joy, not for actual study. Too many people like to hear a small little contrarian story because it's: interesting and it feels like you've unlocked a new secret about the world and everyone else is dumb.
And you are forgetting how generous we Brits are Leo, we gave the jet engines we developed to the US for their help in the war, but to be even handed we also sold some to the Soviets so that they could make the Mig 15, a formidable aeroplane.
This is truly an excellent video! One question arises for me, however: the stated 80 to 85% loss rate for Lancaster missions over Japan. To be clear: even when taking the lower 80% figure, that still means that 4 out of 5 aircraft will be lost PER RAID. That simply cannot be true. Even if every raid would be as devastating as, for example, the all-Lancaster Dresden bombing, it still means losing 640 out of 800 Lancasters that participated in the raid. And please keep in mind, by 1945 RAF Bomber Command could probably muster something in the region of 1000 operable Lancasters (again, I am not sure here, but the maximum effort Dresden raid with 800 Lancasters gives some perspective) I see 2 possibilities here: - the 80 to 85% loss rate refers to a crew's chance of completing their 30 mission tour, which would probably be roughly in line with a crew's survival chance over Germany in 1943 (loss rate somewhere around 3 to 5 percent would be my guess) - or there was simply a mistake and 8 to 8,5 percent are meant, which would still be absolutely dreadful survival odds, see above. Would be happy to hear your opinion.
The dresden raid was at night, early in the war the british tried daylight bombing with lancasters and suffered a 60% loss rate and that wasn't even a deep penetration. Thus the lancaster was relegated to night missions only in contested airspace
The Lancaster was a good aircraft, but saying it would be seriously considered as an atomic bomber is like saying the B-24 would be. In principle one could try a mission with such a bomber, but the B29 is a generation beyond the Lancaster and it shows in performance. The people in charge were too smart for this idea to be true.
It’s arguably two generations considering the Lanc was made to meet a pre-war spec from the air ministry for a heavy bomber. Which is remarkable considering what it did. The Lincoln should have been used like the Lancaster was, with the Lanc going the same way as Halifax and Stirling (transport, supply drops, airborne ops)
Did the British use B29's (aka Washington's) as nuclear platforms? From my research it wasn't until the introduction of the V-bombers that Britain had a deployable nuclear deterrent.
I'm British and I've never heard of the Lancaster ever being considered in the nuclear role. I just don't think it happened. Tiger Force was something entirely different, and let's face it was envisaged before anybody even knew about the atom bomb. Before the atom bomb the war "might" have dragged on another year and Tiger Force "might" have had a conventional bombing role to play, but the two atom bombs rendered it superfluous overnight ( thank goodness). Where I might differ is that there definitely were plans to use Liberators in the air to air refueling role refueling Lancasters, but again, how far those plans had evolved into reality is anybodys guess. That Tiger Force was planned at all indicates that the range issues had been resolved one way or another. What would be the point if they hadn't ? Look up " Tiger Force " on Wikipedia. It is quite interesting. Personally I think Tiger Force would have been a disaster anyway as RAF aircrew were worn out by the European bombing campaign and our aircraft unsuitable for the most part to Far Eastern operations. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force_(air)
The B-29 was fitted with the Lancaster bomb suspension system used for the 20 ton Grand Slam bomb. So a Lancaster could physically carry an atomic bomb. The replacement to the Lancaster - the Lincoln - did drop nuclear weapons over Australia for testing. Avro Lincoln’s were deployed to the Far East in August 1945.
@@allangibson2408 It's not the ability to carry that is in question. It's the complexity of the systems to support carrying a nuclear weapon that wartime Lancasters could not possibly have been adapted to in the time frame, certainly not in Tiger Force. Once you go testing in peacetime anything is possible, and they certainly didn't need long range to test nuclear bombs in Australia. Also you need to consider the secrecy surrounding "Manhattan". Nobody in the RAF knew anything but the sketchiest rumours of a super weapon.
@@timhancock6626 The early nuclear weapons were less complicated than the Grand Slams. The suspension system was exactly the same. And as I said - the LINCOLN would have been the obvious choice. The only difficulty would be access to the bomb casing to insert the last of the fissile material (which would have required a hole in the bomb bay roof and a platform to stand on. The operational difficulty with the Lancaster’s and Lincoln’s was that they were unpressurised making the required high altitude flying extremely uncomfortable. (That’s why the British bought the B-50). So technically possible but politically improbable. The RAAF operated modified Lincoln’s that operated at 45,000ft with the crew in full pressure suits to drop the test weapons in Australia. That was to gather ballistic data for the British V-bomber force. Six highly modified Lincoln’s didn’t have much value after this so they were scrapped in Australia.
@@allangibson2408 But that was years later so perfectly possible. In the wartime scenario it was not a starter unless the Americans asked us, and they didn't.
@@allangibson2408 interesting - on checking Jackson's Avro history (Putnam), it seems Lincoln service trials didn't start with 57 and 44 squadrons until September of 1945, and the first overseas mention I can find of Lincolns is only in October of 1946. Also, no atomic weapons were ever dropped from Avro Lincolns; the first British free fall weapon - Blue Danube in 1956 - being too heavy for anything except the Vickers Valiant.
Once again another fantastic video Greg. I learned so much from this video about the Avro Lancaster. I have always loved this plane. Thank you so much for covering this topic. I had heard the Lancaster as an alternate to the B-29 story before and always had my doubts especially when it came to range? Nevermind the altitude and fending off what few Japanese fighter planes might have been left?
Thank you Greg for the well researched and factually backed video. I watch MFP videos a lot, I enjoy them but was disappointed that more myth than fact was used on his atomic Lancaster video. Thanks again for the excellent videos, much appreciated.
20:08 "Armed" doesn't even begin to describe the danger. While an implosion type bomb can be set on fire with no danger of a nuclear explosion, an armed gun type bomb will almost certainly undergo a full nuclear detonation if set on fire.
Felton,s channel is played out.. He is starting to struggle coming up with new episode material..He is pushing the envelope and reaching for provocative creative new insight
Excellent video Greg. Recently I've learned that MFP is a very dubious source of info on WW2 in general. Good to see some very knowledgeable people biting back as of late. Keep up the good work
I am very disappointed with Marc Felton. Almost all of these RUclips producers are just doing sloppy work in order to produce a lot of content, very very poor content
1st class Greg. .. a respectful counter balance presentation based on well researched , and aircraft centric knowledge. An interesting thought for a future presentation might be the RAF Squadron that did reached Australia late in the war equipped with twin Hi Ball anti shipping Mosquitos
I just re-watched this video from start to finish again for the second time. I'm struck by how many details Mark Felton just made up out of thin air. It's quite disturbing. No historian should ever invent facts just to get more views or sell more books. Greg says he's not judging the man or his entire body of work, just that one video. Well, I'm gonna say that I *AM* judging the man, and what I see is a dishonest historian making shyt up.
I'd say the right way to judge someone, and we do this sort of thing without thinking about it as a formal model, is to say what are the odds of this result being the result of honest mistakes? If the conclusion is that result is too low then we conclude the person is inherently dishonest and should disregard them as a source. I can't imagine how MFP could possibly get things so wrong without outright dishonesty. This is a case where I am not going to watch any of his videos ever again because he clearly is doing something very wrong to have gotten this result.
@Fava Beans Blink 3 times if Mark Felton's knife menaces your taint and balls. Send pics if he cut off your ears. Argue further if he has performed the lobotomy.
Generally I enjoy Felton's work but its noteworthy that on way to many of his videos I find factual errors. I have even commented on a few. Never get a response or a correction. But those errors were small. This one was a whopper!
Awesome video as always Greg, enjoyed it! As an ex USAF jet jokey who spent quite a bit of time flying KC-135s and refueling other hungry for Jet-A I like to think I know a few things about refueling mid air. In order for air to air refueling to work IT HAS TO BE SUCCESSFUL! If the rendezvous fails or the equipment fails you have a failed mission. If you don’t have a successful hookup with your tanker you need to be able to fly to your alternate with whatever fuel you have in your tanks. Not very many options in the pacific for this work. I don’t really care how many tanker Lancaster you think you need, your going to at least double it or triple your number of backups for such a critical mission. That is a lot of airplanes beyond the planned mission support aircraft (wx/photo etc) increasing the chances of a ground abort. OK rant off, great video!
As a USAF Fighter pilot (long Retired) just wanted to thank you and all the others in the Big Friendlies for the gas. The Air Superiority of the US and our Allies was achieved due to our air-to-air capabilities. Now, about my Green Stamps...
@@chrisvandecar4676 Did you happen to The Operations Room's video on the Vulcan raid on the Falklands? 11 tankers for 2 bombers, one of which was a reserve (which proved necessary). Even with explanation, I still don't fully understand the Refueling Plan 😆🙈 Really increased my respect for the RAF's professionalism!
Lots of stories from that war. One I heard when I was TDY to Castle AFB, CA; they have a Vulcan at in their museum there, once the Falklands kicked off, a few RAF personnel arrived and removed the refueling probe from the museum's Vulcan as it was needed to install on one of the RAF's active Vulcans😀
A good historian shows their sources. I’ve got to say Greg is extremely good at exposing the flaws in some of my favourite historic aircraft. And to be honest although it’s disappointing to realise I held views which were not well supported by the facts, it’s better realise I was in error and move on. Thank you Greg.
@@seanm2511 Greg is quite a good amateur historian even if he has made no claims to be one and he usually has multiple sources whereas Dr Felton’s sources often remain a mystery. Why was I wrong? 1. I was emotional invested in an aircraft I liked. 2. I was not sufficiently educated as to that facts. 3. I wasn’t sufficiently skeptical of the facts presented in the MFP video. The story was entertaining and I was amused at Mark Felton’s habit of picking stories that sticks it to the US. Being amused however should not be an excuse and I’m not going to hide behind it. I’d now like to hear Greg’s take of the MFP video on the Cold War Avro Vulcan raid on the USA where the UK managed to infiltrate through the USA air defences and simulate bombing US cities.
It's indeed good that he shows sources. At the same time those sources don't really support what he says. He claims that there were no political reasons but at 4:54 it is obvious in the text that Arnold did not want a British plane to deliver "our" bomb. A very clear political reason. And at 05:04 Greg says: On this page he points out that the bombs themselves changed a bit making them easier to fit the B29. But that is not what the page says. The page states that the bombs were changed to make them fit the B29. That is different. It's good to see the sources so that we know Greg very much reads what he wants to read in the sources. Just like Mark Felton does. It's very obvious that the Lanc was not seriously considered for political reason. So both Greg and Mark are both partly right and partly wrong.
The lancaster was a great warbird, but the first time i heard of this a-bomb/Lancaster link, i immediately thought , no way that was EVER gonna happen. First off, the B-29 was a next generation aircraft, faster, longer ranging and higher flying, the crew training was on another level even leaving aside the atomic bomb complexity, then theres the security aspect. Even the crews themselves had no idea why they were learning what they eere learning, nothing of official information was divilged until they were en route to the pacific. Paul Tibbets was the only member of any of the flight crews who actually knew what the mission was. As close allies as the british were, this was too close-hold for them to have been involved. Never been much of a Felton fan, but this kinda tanishes any credibility he might have had
Thank god someone is calling felton out on his bullshit. He's gotten in trouble several times recently with his shoddy/jingoistic work. He has a very high reputation in the UK, but that is to be expected, he uncritically regurgitates British WW2 propaganda, as this response video highlights, with depressing regularity.
This channel and Caliban seem to be the only channels that understand that both the mosquito and Lancaster have both been lionized in a crazy way post WW2
Thanks Greg. When I first saw the Mark Felton RUclips video on the Lancaster as a possible atomic bomb delivery vehicle, I thought it seem a little difficult to believe. I didn’t realize how much of a “fantasy” it was. I really appreciate all the efforts that go into your very well researched videos.
Wasn’t the B 32 Dominator the backup plan if the B 29 was a bust? I know it had some development problems too (as all aircraft do-certainly in wartime), but it did bomb Japan a few times, so it clearly could reach the target, the fact that only a little over 100 were made strongly suggests to me that the USAAF had concluded that either the B 29 was good to go, or had a clear path to success which allowed them to cut short the B 32 program.
Ya I think they funded them just because of the war. I think once the prototypes were airborne the performance difference between the two relagated the Dominator to minor bombing and transport missions. I think the last US plane attacked in WW 2 involved a pair of B-32's.
The B-32 was supposed to be a cheap, quick, low-risk alternative to the B-29, without all the fancy gadgetry that ran up the program cost and development time of the Superfortress. Unfortunately the B-32 program ran into problems of its own; and by the time the first examples were ready for delivery to the AAF, the B-29 was already in combat (and was generally a better airplane).
@@Philistine47 The B32 wasn't supposed to be a cheap low risk alternative to the B29, it just turned out that way. The USAAC knew in the late 30's that the development of a bomber for the specifications they'd laid down was going to be a big gamble due to some of the requirements of the specifications, so instead of putting all their eggs in one basket they awarded both Boeing and Consolidated contracts to develop bombers to the specifications laid down, it was a "whoever crosses the finish line first" kind of deal. The B32 originally had the same type of complex defensive fire control system made by Sperry that the B29 had, but the problem that Consolidated had was with pressurizzing the airframe, Boeing had successfully managed to get the pressurized fuselage of the B29 to work so that put them ahead of Consolidated in producing a bomber to the specifications laid down by the Army, once it was apparent that the B29 was going to beat the B32 into production the pressurized fuselage of the B32 was dropped turning it into a medium level bomber along with the remote fired defensive guns being dropped in favor of the conventionally fired defensive guns, both being done to expedite it's development in the interest of converting existing B17 and B24 units in the Pacific over to B32 since it still would have a longer range than them, however other production delays prevented even that from happening. The B32 does however have the distinction of being the last Allied aircraft to have seen combat in WW2, there was some type of an incident where after the Japanese surrendered some Japanese fighter pilots attacked a B32.
The B-32 was more a backup program to the B-29 than anything, although I would like to see Greg make a video about it and why it failed if possible. The last WWII engagement was indeed two B-32 Dominators (Hobo Queen II, which gained altitude and evaded, and an unnamed aircraft that was quite badly shot up, and which produced the last aerial casualty of the War, Sergeant Anthony Marchione). The unnamed Dominator was intercepted by over a dozen IJN aircraft (mostly Zeroes with two or three Georges) under Saburo Sakai's command (they were quite drunk at the time, I should add; not Sakai's best showing and he does not mention it in his autobiography). She was hit more than a few times and rather remarkably managed to keep going. But the Dominator had issues with the engines overheating really badly and the solenoids that deployed the landing gear "firing" at random (which is what killed Hobo Queen II; her nose gear retracted suddenly while parked!). The B-32 WAS looked at as an atomic bomber, but with the B-35 and B-36 coming online, plus the XB-44 which in turn became the B-50, the USAAF just figured "okay, we do not need this."
@@Philistine47 The B-32 was supposed to have the gadgetry, it just didn't all seem to work in the B-32 and some of it was eliminated to save weight and cost.
Greg, outstanding as always. Here's an issue you might consider. Would you address the F4u Corsair and the initial problems the US Navy experienced in approving it for carrier operations. There are many articles out there claiming one thing or another regarding who solve the carrier landing issues. Maybe you can clear up who actually solved the landing gear, the wing stall, tail wheel assembly, cowling flaps, etc. Although the carrier approach issue was solved by the Brits, I'm wondering about the aircraft design features and who actually solved them.
Jup and the strange part is that VF-17 was allowed to set sail on Bunker Hill to the Southwest Pacific. During which time they ofcourse flew of the carrier. Near the end of the cruise to the Southwest Pacific area the decision was made for VF-17 to leave the carrier to simplify logistics. This story just gives me the feeling that there were other reasons than the Corsair's carrier suitability. I guess it really depends on the definition carrier suitability, but things relating to that would probably more accurate reasons.
@@martijn9568 The reason was they couldnt figure out how to land them on carriers because of the long nose obstructing the view. It was the British that perfected the technique of coming around just abaft of the carrier for a controlled approach, then they taught the Americans, then the Americans, who up until that point had used them in land based operations, started using the Corsairs extensively off of carriers as well.
@@ToreDL87 Yeah, so that's just a moot point. VF-17 actually demonstrated that they could safely land Corsairs on aircraft carriers. They were only removed from their carrier after getting "close" to the area of operations.
Greg, Yet another awesome video! I truly loved it. I watched the MFP video and accepted it as fact. Your arguments are bulletproof. Thanks for setting the record straight. On another note. I was a global base engine design manager for one of the big three. If you ever feel the need to connect. That would be cool. Thanks again for the video. All the best. Chuck
Terrific video Greg. Now THAT is what i call a thorough and polite rebuttal! After the War, did the British ever consider the Avro Lincoln as an atomic bomber? I know that issues with the bomb bay ultimately hindered the Lincoln and forced them to to switch to the Boeing Washington (a.k.a. the B-29) in 1950. The Aussies also tested two ex-Washingtons once the Canberra was ready, but that went nowhere.
The First British A-Bomb was 17 feet long, had a diameter of 62 inches and weighed in at around 10,000lb. You couldn't get the thing into a B-29. The RAF binned the Washington (B-29) in 1954. The Lincoln was retired as a bomber in Europe in 1955, though aircraft were used in second line roles until 1963 and for operations where there was little to no Air to Air threat.
I never knew there was a Boeing Washington used by the RAF. When I visited Duxford about 10 years ago I was very surprised to see a B-29. I must have missed an explanatory sign - I was somewhat stupefied by the number of aircraft on display. What a variety! There was also an airshow that day. Suffice it to say I was on a heavy sensory overload but I've always remembered the B-29 there. Now I know why it makes sense that the UK displays one - thank you! I took special note of the B-29 because my dad worked on them in WW2. He was a ground crewman specializing in the electromechanical remote controlled gun turrets. Fortunately for my existence he was only old enough to enter the USAAF late in the war and served on stateside training bases.
I truly appreciate your calm, well researched presentations, exemplified by this video. What I've noticed about your presentations is that you almost always go to the source documents for most of your information (how in the world do you find all this information??). Fascinating look at some of the obscure details that actually explain historical events.
Great work Greg. Leonard Cheshire was one of the leading RAF Bomber Pilots in WW2. He commanded 617 after Guy Gibson, he was experienced at dropping large bombs, the tall boy. Wouldn’t he be the sort of man us Brits would have picked to drop the A-Bomb … maybe MFP could tell us why then that Cheshire was sat in the B-29 Big Stink as an observer.
Because the Americans wanted official British Observers to witness the attack? I mean the answer to that question is really very simple. The British after all had quite a significant role in the Manhattan Project after all, far more of a role than many Americans realise, and than some like to admit. If Cheshire and Perry had not been there another two British RAF officers would have been. He was simply there as an observer to the event, not as part of the crew. It is also worth bearing in mind that while Cheshire did fly Operational Sorties with 617 Squadron he was not officially supposed to. The RAF rule was that following their 3rd full combat tour pilots and aircrew were not officially permitted to undertake Operational flying. Some like Cheshire ignored that rule, but he was the exception to the rule. My Great Uncle survived two full combat tours as a Lancaster Rear Gunner, the chances of any air crew surviving one full tour was pretty slim, let alone three. Hence the rule.
@@alganhar1 On both this channel and Mark Felton's, it's nice to find sensible discussions and intelligent debate. Not the usual RUclips offensiveness. Lovely.
Hit the nail on head- if the RAF HAD to launch an atomic raid, the selection procedure for who carries it out would have been a two minute chat then a call to 617. And while it wouldnt have been Cheshire leading the raid, is simply no evidence in the multitude of 617 books and whatever of ANY training or prep for an atomic strike misssion. (Side note- My mother knew Cheshire, she worked for his charity post war. And on my dads side my gran was a fire warden around the Avro factory in Manchester. hes into his planes, i followed suit. The lanc is a wonderful, wonderful aircraft* but never in all my years have we 2 in this family heard of any hint or rumor of it being considered for the Enola Gay gig.) but then Felton is a bit of a hack with an alarming percentage of wehraboo and closet nazi/race warrior fanbois
Back to back viewing of the eurocompulsion abath 124 and a break down of missconceaptions surrounding 2 amazing aircraft?! What an awesome evening this has been!
I completely agree with this video. I am a physicist a prepared a ppt preseentation on the development of the "atomic bomb" (Manhattan Project). At that time Tinian had the longest airstrips (4) in the world and any other airfield was out of the queston for the job. (Okinawa was considered and also used as on the way back for emergeny landing, when the aircafts were "light".) Even so, with the necessary fuel and the weight of the bomb, an engine failure during takeoff would have been disatrous. (Think of the A-bomb going off at Tinian instead of Japan!) Captain Wiliam Parsons, head of the Los Alamos bomb design team, who was also on board the Enola Gay, realized this when seeing such an accident just a day before the mission! He decided to personally activate LIttle Boy (Uranium bomb, Hiroshima) in the air. (Think of him working on the U-bomb in the bombbay at 10.000 ft.) This could not be done in case of Fat Man (Plutonium bomb, Nagasaki - an implosion bomb) - you just crossed your fingers. As far as I know the Lancaster was considered first (in 1943) because it could take the large size A-bomb easier due to the development of the Tallboy bomb but B-29s could be adapted realtively easyly. Don't forget that the 309 Composite Group commanded by Col. Paul Tibbets was practicing A-bomb missions with specially adopted B-29s (bombay expanded, turrets removed) since Dec. 1944 with mockup A-bombs (Pumpkin bombers). (At times with real TNT loads over Japan!) (Project Silverplate).
In an interesting historical coincidence, on June 15, 1944, the first US bombing raid on the Japanese home islands since the Doolittle raid was made by B-29s flying from China and the US also invaded Saipan. The US was already using B-29 bombers to attack Japan in June 1944, although the raids were relatively minor and the logistics of supplying fuel and bombs to China by flying them over the 'hump' of the Himalayan mountains verged on the impractical. Once the Marianas island chain was secured and airbases were built, the B-29s moved to Guam, Saipan, and Tinian. The important takeaway from this is that the US had the ability to attack the Japanese home islands as early as June 1944, and used the Marianas as bases to bomb Japan starting in November 1944. The US didn't need an emergency backup plan to use Lancasters once it had five large bases in the Marianas that could support up to 180 B-29 bombers each, and were fully operational seven months before the first test of the atomic bomb in July 1945.
Exactly - as Greg pointed out towards the end of the video, it was an established design and it’s performance was simply leaps and bounds better than any other bomber in the world. For good reason as well - most people don’t realize that the Superfortress program cost about $45 billion (with a B!) dollars in today’s $$$, 30% MORE than the entire nuclear weapons program in the US (which in itself saw entire towns built, the largest buildings in the world for plutonium and uranium production, etc.) It was simply a monumental program. Not to crap on the Lancaster, but the idea that the US would even consider a plane like that while possessing a platform like the B-29 is just laughable.
Exactly - as Greg pointed out towards the end of the video, it was an established design and it’s performance was simply leaps and bounds better than any other bomber in the world. For good reason as well - most people don’t realize that the Superfortress program cost about $45 billion (with a B!) dollars in today’s $$$, 30% MORE than the entire nuclear weapons program in the US (which in itself saw entire towns built, the largest buildings in the world for plutonium and uranium production, etc.) It was simply a monumental program. Not to crap on the Lancaster, but the idea that the US would even consider a plane like that while possessing a platform like the B-29 is just laughable.
@@EstorilEm yet the soviets blew the yanks out the water with the tsar bomba and a relatively old TU-95 which is still in russian service...not to crap on the B-29 but the russians do it just that bit better.
It's relatively easy to tell which RUclipsrs are motivated by money, and which are motivated by sharing knowledge. I instantly unsubscribe from any channel with clickbait titles/thumbnails, and videos being exactly 10minutes long. It's one thing to have a sponsor/patreon, it's another to have your channel being dedicated to the algorithm.
OK... How about Greg cashing out on 16X more followers ? That was almost bullying with no respect for the guy whatsoever.. Click bait with a purpose...
I'm still subbing to Felton's channel. But he did earn a dislike from me. As it should be rather than simply unsubbing just because you disagree with someone
@@rockoorbe2002 disliking a video also increases its rank in the algorithm, RUclips doesn't care if you dislike a video, if you dislike it enough to watch it they still profit, and the creator profits, which is the real reason they removed the dislike count. What you really need to do to demote a video is not watch it, not dislike it, not like it, not comment it, just do nothing.
Thanks for the necessary correction. Too many RUclips "histories" never cite sources and are indiscriminate about using stock footage. This is a breath of fresh air.
I understand you are an airline pilot? A serious person. I have enjoyed your videos for years. I am a private pilot. My dad was a search and rescue pilot in vietnam, and flew C 133s before that trans pacific. My wife's uncle flew B29's in the 40s during ww2 . My recollection of my father and her uncle is that they were steady people. Dad retired a bird Col. I met Gen. Tibbets at my house on Maxwell AFB in 1982 . I was 14. Dad knew alot of people. Also met Greg Boyington and C Yeager.
This was coincidentally the first Felton vid I ever watched, and immediately I was sus of the farfetched claims and lack of works cited. Very odd for a self-proclaimed historical author. I am no Lancaster or Bomber Command expert, but knew enough to find the fable more fiction than fact. So thank you for taking the time and effort to take analyze and deconstruct this claim.
Great video Greg! I had the pleasure of working in the same building that was to modify the B-29's for the atomic missions. Also, you are correct about FRL (now Cobham Limited) and their dominance in the refueling field. especially their MPRS Pods (Multi Point Refueling System). We would meet with the FRL guys in Bournemouth for "user conferences" and then tour their facilities. Great fun back in the days working with the guys from the USAF, RAF, RAAF. RSAF and FAF personnel.
The B-29 project was more expensive than the bomb itself. It was one of the largest and the most complex aircraft of its time. The Lancaster was capable, but nowhere near in the same league.
"I feel the need to beat this nonsense to death, so I'm gonna keep going..." THANK-YOU! I love it when facts WIN! That said, Mark Felton has a very interesting channel, and I highly recommend it to all. But MFP is sometimes a bit sensational.
"expecting everything to go swimmingly all the time is indicative of a person that has never worked on any technical project of any significance" This alone is worth the video, the series and the channel.
Guns blazing! Take no prisoners, Greg. Someone had to do it and I trust no one but you to make this callout. Apologies for not being active on your channel for a while. Real life has been a bit rough. Almost 100k!
@LudVan 78 my doubts arose when I started noticing something in the comments section of his videos. You have to scroll for ages before you find a comment that isn't along the lines of 'Dr Felton/Mr Felton, excellent video as always!'. I think he's gained a cult of personality and that's never a good sign - history enthusiasts should know that more than anyone.
@LudVan I was going to mention the same thing. B-29 was developed with the A-Bomb in mind. And yes, development was more expensive than the A-Bomb. Side note: read about the Russians program to copy the B-29. 3 “capture” units were used to make somewhat crude copies due to technical shortcomings of the Soviet system. Of course we didn’t want to give it to them voluntarily as it was an A-Bomb delivery tool. They had already stolen our A-Bomb plans.
@@bobkrohn8053 Some could say the B-29 was kind of ripping off the heinkel bomber as it too has the spherical nose.The soviet technical aspects of nuclear bombs are actually more accurate than the americans..the little boy bomb only attained a 0.2% fission point...in fact the tsar bomba was technically the best bomb ever tested..sakharov predicted a 50mt yield before testing...both the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs were woefully inefficient in terms of fission.
@@doctorsocrates4413 Ohhh, so the Heinkel had fully pressurized cabin? Remote Controlled machine guns?etc, etc. More money was spent developing the B-29 than was spent on the A-Bomb. Any advancements in Atomic Energy by Russia were most assuredly achieved through espionage. Same with space travel. Ever see pics of their aborted space shuttle? Carbon Copy.
I’m a bit late to this discussion, I agree with your rebuttal of the Lancaster A bomber thesis. However on flight refuelling you’ve missed some wartime developments. I’d recommend the RAF Historical Society Journal No. 44 originally printed in 2009. The article “Tiger Force and Flight Refuelling “ by Brian Gardner. Most of the journals are online.
There is good evidence that even before VE day UK was planing to switch operations to the Pacific theatre with the dreaded invasion of Japan looming. Of course eliminated by the A bomb. A version of the Mosquito called the Hornet was developed en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet I have no doubt much planning for many scenario were in motion to end the war as soon as possible with resources already available. Reverse engineering published asset performance today and applying to historical known field situations is only a loose understanding of hypothetical asset application strategic possibilities.
I appreciate all the research that you have done and presented in your videos. Years ago I had paid a visit to the War Eagles Air Museum in Santa Teresa, NM and saw the tabbed pins that were collected on display. An interesting story was told that a German visitor took note of a tabs date and target and realized that he was there that day. Fortunately for him, he was outside of the bombed area.
I used to watch mfp... But the more i learned about the topics portrayed in the videos, the more it seemed like someone on a mission to keep up some sort of 1945 propaganda legacy, reminds me of those tabloid news programs that overdramatise one side of an arguement/point of view so that people who lack basic critical thinking skills are triggered with whatever emotion they wish to enourage the watcher to have.
What's ineteresting about his videos is that he often presents them as "another perspective" on popular narratives. I actually don't mind that -- after all, there are as much "truths" as there are people and history *does* get rewritten to paint people and institutions in a better light. As Bismarck pointed out in his vid on Nazi ideals in the Luftwaffe. And as Greg himself pointed out in his vid on P-51 vs P-47 range. But claiming there are black planes at a certain place at a certain time, that are capable of doing a specific mission -- well, if Felton doesn't have a credible source for that, than I can't justify trusting his other "different perspective" videos either.
@@zJoriz I agree, finding new information, or perhaps from the perspective of the other side compared to popular history is excellent, you need to hear and see both sides information in order to determine the most likely actual events that transpired. And yes, straight up seemingly making up a list of things that happened is not history, i feel that if someone was going to claim such a story, at least point to where or how you found it out in order for the watcher to go and delve deeper if they wish to know more. If those arent provided, i guess its just a story and should be treated as such
I unsubbed Mark Felton the day that video dropped. With respect for proper history, thank you for doing this. Now, if we could just get another Greg to go through the rest of his videos…
There's an excellent book called "The Kamikaze Hunters" by Will Iredale that describes the Royal Navy's use of the F4U Corsair in the Pacific towards the end of the war against the Divine Wind, and in its use for ground attack; and also details the ability of their aircraft carrier's steel flight decks to absorb the punishment of an aircraft crashing into it. Another great video, Greg!
I mean in Post WWII era the RAF bought or leased B-29s and renamed them Boeing Washington, even though its a stopgap for their future V-Bombers, the Washington was the stopgap for the Bomber Command and some of the Washingtons were iirc Silverplate B-29s that were capable of carrying and dropping the Atomic bomb, obviously if they said that Lancaster or Lincoln could be a better bomber than the B-29 if they could be converted into A-Bomb delivery aircraft, then why did the RAF leased or bought the B-29s from the USAF.
The R.A.F. Historic Branch have a standard response they now give to this due to so many enquiries arising from the appealing but false story. Nice if it was true but a myth.
Mark Felton has made quite a few outrageous claims. I stopped subscribing to his channel when he claimed Eagle Squadrons had "fought bravely in the Battle of Britain" when, in fact, the first Eagle Squadron wasn't operational till Feb 1941.
True it's Mark stretching facts to fit his narrative. The first Eagle squadron was formed on 19th September 1940 BUT was not operational until Feb 1941 as you state.
Plus his BS accusing the Deutsches Panzermuseum had sold their Tiger. Easily verifiable facts are a mere inconvenience for him. As he puts fake junk in his work, it becomes hard to trust anything.
" In January 2022, the German Tank Museum issued a statement responding to a RUclips video Felton had posted, refuting a claim that they had "recently sold a Tiger I to a private collector and replaced it with a 1:1 plastic model." The Museum accused Felton of "...just want[ing] a maximum degree of sensation and emotion in his video, regardless of facts and with minimum workload."[26]"
The Lancaster was a single piloted aircraft. I seriously doubt the United States had much interest in those types of aircraft, for long range bombing. If there was any delay in the B-29 project, surely the B-32 program would have been taken more seriously. Maybe that is something to explore, could the B-32 have carried out a nuclear attack on the Japanese mainland? Good day.
As an Englishman I'm glad you thoroughly debunked this foolish notion. I can see why the Lancaster was initially seen as a fallback bomb carrier but the mission requirements and practicalities ruled it out completely. Perhaps just as importantly, the USAAF was never going to let any technical issues get in the way of establishing their own post-war atomic weapon delivery capability. As I understand it, the Lancaster did make one contribution to the Silverplate programme. I believe the actual bomb shackle used the design from the Lancaster's Tallboy & Grand Slam set-up.
The Lincoln was ready to go to the Far East and could have completed the mission The plane was large enough had the range especially since the Atom Bombes were not that heavy They had Merlin 85s a very good engine It could have been done but as things stood we were not invited But to say that Britain could not have accomplished it , is stupid
@@jacktattis Source that a squadron was operational with the Lincoln in April 1945? For example, the P-80 was seeing service in late 1944, but none suggested it was ready for combat until 1945. Also looks like the Lincoln had to use a reduced bombload of 3,000 lbs for very long range missions. Little Boy and Fat Man weighed over 9,000 lbs.
If the Lancaster was such a good fit for the nukes, and the fact that they had a plethora of them, and lots of personel familiar with them, spares, as well as the tooling to manufacture/repair/modify the the things, why did the British BUY the B-29 (the B-50 varient) for use as a nuclear bomber post war? Especially if they already had all the problems involved figured out? With the litany of logistical tail that would have to be bought and integrated into the RAF? The altitude, speed, and range limitations not withstanding. I guess some people just think that operating an aircraft is comparable to operating a truck (which is a bit more complicated than operating a car or pickup but that's a different subject). Please keep up with your very nuanced videos.
Because the B-29 had a chance of evading a Mig 15 due to the speed and height it could fly , A Lincoln had none!! The RAF didn't get B-50's, they got clapped out old B-29's and had major reliability issues with it.
Well done Greg, another job well done. I'm a Brit and so I love the Lancaster but historical accuracy is vital. I think people produce these videos laced with bosh, bunkum and balderdash because they can, it makes a good video and the proles will lap it up - Stockholm syndrome as it were.
MFP discounts the US contribution to victory in WWII. That's a common theme to many of his videos and is very obvious to other historians viewing them.
How much credit do you want? Except for a couple episodes covering isolated incidents of captured Germans being killed, I always thought Felton was oddly pro-american.
No - I don't believe that Mark Felton Productions had anything right. I also answered yes to your question about whether Lancaster could carry nukes, because it was vague. If they were chosen to carry them - they would be modified and nukes would be modified, until mission was possible. I wish you the very best, stay safe and be well! I will watch this video slightly later, since I have an appointment when you air this. I also do know some things about nuclear weapons.
HA! at 7:20 Greg states - "so that really should be the end of this Video BUT i feel the need to just beat this nonsense to death,so I'm going to keep going" 🤣
Thank. You. I remember seeing that Mark Felton video and being so incredibly put off by it - not because of my "national prestige" but because I knew it was a misreading of sources at best and content creation B.S at worst. I'm glad you took the time to deconstruct this so thoroughly.
Bravo! When I heard Mark Feldon’s discussion about the aircraft used to drop the bomb I laughed my ass off. The US spend more on the development of the B29 than the cost of the bomb. The Enola Gay and Box Car were purportedly built for this role. I would doubt the the Landcaster could get off the ground, much less make it to the targets, or have the operational ceiling to stay out of harms way.
The USA spent more on the Nordon bombsight than the cost of the bombs too. Ironically the nuclear bombings were some of the very few times they were able to be used for accurate targetting - when precision targetting really didn't matter much
@@miscbits6399 Want to see something look up how much was spent developing the proximity fuse for ordnance. The name doesn’t sound like a big thing, but it was an enormous expense.
@@nofrackingzone7479 Yes, amazing how much R&D gets spent on blowing people up. It was also a closely guarded secret for a long time WRT the claim of Enola Gay and Bocks Car being built for the role: Not quite but they were modified for it
We know that Lancasters WERE prepared withlong-range modifications to drop earthquake bombs on the Honshu bridges. That was openly stated in "The Dambusters" by Paul Brickhill. One of the 617 Squadron personnel is said to have responded light-heartedly to news of the actual A-bombing with the words "They must have heard we were coming." I wonder if this was misinterpreted.
Good job. Your scholarly indignation at Fraudulent Felton a delight. I knew Admiral Ashworth, the weaponeer on Bockscar. He was the USN eyes on both the B-29 program and doings at Los Alamos. He'd been on his way back to the Pacific with an F6F squadron when he got diverted into atomic matters. They picked him because he had aced engineering at Annapolis and gotten a DFC on TBFs. He told me the problems with early 29s scared him far more than glitches on The Hill. Beaucoup engine fires. Anyway, glad to see you set Felton straight. You really ought to be on faculty at a good university.
I always thought that the "Nuclear Lancaster" theory was hard to take seriously. The B-29 was really a new generation bomber compared to the Lancaster. The Lancaster's range and load capacity were just not comparable to the B-29.
The RAF planned some next gen stuff but WW2 appeared so none got further than paper exercises. The last of the generation leading into that were the likes of the Windsor and its developments which was a bit of a failure. Much as the Lincoln was an improvement over the Mk. I Lancaster it was a comparatively weak affair compared to the proposed super bombers of the B-29 class that were proposed and never built. Against an enemy with operational air defences the Lincoln wasn't going to be able to make it to the target with atomic weapons. The Shackelton did later get rated for nuclear depth charges, though.
As far as an alternate go-to bomber, the US did have a plan if the B-29 didn't pan out as a conventional bomber: The B-32 Dominator. This plane had many of the attributes of the B-29 (and many of its problems also), with similar top speed and cruise speed, altitude and bomb load. The 2 things it lacked were the range (about 2/3 that of the 29, but 33% more than the Lanc), and a pressurized cabin. AND, even it was never seriously considered as the A-bomb delivery system.
@@rwhutchnlj The B-32 was pretty far behind the B-29 in development and would have needed additional changes to accept Thin Man. In terms of range, it would have been worse than a Lincoln/Lancaster IV. So I'd put the B-32 behind the Lincoln in that role, at least when Thin Man was an possibility. Realistically, the B-29 was still the best choice for the atomic attack, but a Lincoln could probably just about have done it in a pinch. It wouldn't be a first choice, though.
Ahhh yes, it's "super secret" also known as the Pierre Sprey gambit.
"I totally designed the A10 and the F15, but my name isn't on any documentation because it's classified which is why I'm telling you about it."
My name was erased from the SEAL team list for this very reason.
@@twentyrothmans7308
That's hilarious. Thanks!
@@twentyrothmans7308 amazing how many Seals / Deltas that you come across on YT
@@ivanthemadvandal8435 I've had people tell me that they were Navy Nukes, not knowing that I was one.
@@ivanthemadvandal8435
I was with Delta Force but they banned me from Fox News, so I just spread truth on YT.
20:00 Remember: the atomic bomb had a barometric fuse that would cause the bomb to detonate at a predetermined height. You HAD to DISARM the bomb before LANDING, or you would vaporize a chunk of Tinian and probably kill most everyone on the island!
Excellent point General.
Did it really have no means of final arming on release? I'm no engineer, but I'd've thought that it would have something like a lanyard attached to the plane to stop it from detonating while still attached.
I support purity of essence.
@@Delta_Hotel From the archive footage I've seen and the data on the bomb I've observed, no.
It could only be armed in person, and disarmed in person.
@@Delta_Hotel My specific reference if not clear was to the use of the Lancaster.
With no way to access the bomb bay, the only way to arm the bomb would be to activate a time delayed barometric fuse. Then the only way to go back to base in the event of an aborted mission would be to throw the bomb into the ocean.
So yes, completely impractical.
As a former member of the Royal Air Force I am pleased to find your clear and accurate video relating to the facts rather than numerous dubious speculations offered by a certain other You Tube content provider. Many many years ago I was privileged to actual work on and within the last UK based Lancaster - then known as "The City of Lincoln" and it was/is a truly great aircraft based on its achievements within the roles which it undertook. When I recently came across the claim about it being not just capable but also "standing by and ready" to carry out the B-29 Atomic bomb missions I was bemused if not totally amazed that anyone could believe it to have a shred of reality. Your video very eloquently addresses those claims and debunks them by actually providing evidence to support your logic and reasons - Thank you
Felton has sucked people into his channel through sensationalised videos about weird Nazi stuff, be it the technology or weird occult things they got up to. So once people started salivating at that, their critical thinking processes shut down.
Are you saying the Lincoln could NOT have achieved it You do know the RAF had bases in Iraq Pakistan India, Malaya Borneo and Hong Kong Not one plane touching US territory Unlikely granted impossible NO
As a Brit I naturally love the Lancaster but there is no doubting the B29 was a new generation of bomber and I just cannot see how the Lanc would have the range, speed and capacity to carry out the atomic attacks.
Exactly and well stated. It's not a Brit vs Yank thing.
Canadian here. 30 years in the RCAF. I,ve seen both in real life. The Lanc was great, but the B-29 was head and shoulder above the rest. Pressurized, huge bomb load, long range, capable of 30000 feet. Teething problem, sure. The end of the piston era, yes.
What strikes me as odd is Felton’s videos are normally fairly free of national biases. I can only assume his motivations with the video were solely financial.
@@RealmCenter40 I might have caught a couple bad ones but I sensed bias. OK, national pride is one thing but he had many facts wrong as well. That's why I stopped watching his channel.
@@PappyGunn you got it. Unless I'm mistaken, the Lanc was basically a development of an early/mid 30's plane in design. The 29 was a completely new aircraft to be built as state of the art (and in a few years yet). No wonder it had some teething problems and, IIRC, was the most expensive single project of WWII. The Lanc was a great plane for what it was., without doubt, but is wasn't state of the art by mid/late war. It's not even fair to try and compare the two.
I wrote my Ph.D Thesis about the politics of British Strategic bombing in WWII. I spent a great deal of time in the Public Records Office (UK National Archives).
There was absolutely nothing there about this mythical Lancaster force. Yes I did look at Tiger Force too. Oh, I did read the files that mentioned Leonard Cheshire's participation as an official observer
I have occasionally pointed out factual errors on his video's comments. He has never replied, nor added any correction.
Good job here though.
Thank you
Not surprising that he hasn't responded. Felton often has glaring issues with his videos that even casual history fans can spot from a mile away, I've also seen comments online about how a lot of his work is copied off places like Wikipedia or plagiarized from others.
Is your PhD publicly available online? :)
@@MrNicoJac It was lodge with my University, but this was 25 years ago, so I doubt that they have put it there (I certainly can't find it)
Just because you did actual research and earned a PhD on the topic doesn't mean you know more than a youtube video.
Welcome to the 21st Century....
@@Waltham1892 Congratulations on not knowing a damn thing about what you are talking about.
.
I happened to come across MFP's video on "black Lancasters" a few days ago and I just now finished watching your own "rebuttal" video of MFP's contentions. I've always appreciated the depth of your research, your personal technical savvy, and-last but not least-your calm, no-frills style. I believe your video is a valuable contribution to the historical record. I also think MFP's one was an ill-conceived work of fiction that he concocted while he was having a jingoistic day, wearing a Churchill peacoat and playing "Rule Britannia" real loud on his stereo.
Thanks teerex, that description was pretty funny.
Im here from a comment someone left on that video, any more examples of his inaccuracies? If so I'm done watching him
@@Captain_Willard Well, to start with you don't need theme music if you're doing a serious analysis.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles and ludicrously infantile.
I normally have regard for MFP, but not this time. There was NEVER anything I have seen that suggests a `Lancaster` stand-in. The Lancaster had the lifting capability, but not the range nor the altitude capability. If this is true then MFP should produce the documents.
If not. take the video DOWN. Mark Felton, you produced a lemon. Make lemonade or an apology....
MFP relies on Brandolini’s Law, i.e. "the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it".
I have never hear that law, but wow, it's a true statement.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles So... Greg, don't give yourself too much credit please. Mark Felton is an idiot.
Wow. Love this. Thanks for sharing it
Thank you for posting this. That "other" video made me want to slam my head into a brick wall until I was taken by the warm embrace of a coma.
RUclips might not be for you.
I share the sentiment but not the passion haha. I like Felton’s videos but this was him putting pride in an aircraft or perhaps country over facts. Great vids by the way.
Well said. Also, love your channel and content Rex!
Thanks Rex, I love your work.
Ditto to you! Greetings from the far side of the Pacific! :D
I like this format much better. No overly dramatic music or unnecessary melodramatics, just facts and visual proof as Greg speaks.
Great Job, Sir!
In newspapering, we would call your report a knockdown story, ie, a factual story that refutes a previous ill-sourced story by a competitor. Yours is a paragon of the genre, per video. Well done!
" I call the Bullshit. "
@@danweyant707 Mr Felton snapped the needle red-lining the analog bullshit meter
there is a 2nd hand retelling, about a Lancaster study positing a 10-ton bomb, as Reply to top Comment
Watch 15.28 of marks video - he clearly states it was a “what if” - not reality - get a life
Watch the whole video it is certainly misleading in fact it heads of in a fraudulent direction hence this dissertation
I'm a huge Lancaster fan , and have read countless books on the subject. When I saw Mark Felton's video on this subject , I was disappointed as I knew this was complete nonsense. I even called him out on his comments to ask him to provide his sources . No answer.... I once was a fan of his videos , but after that one ,I avoid his products . I no longer have any faith in his stories
I'm surprised. He can get quite nasty when called out on something.
I agree with you, i am a huge Lancaster fan but this MFP video is like a couple of others of his, just sheer sensationalist fantasy.
Interesting. I just watched his Finnish-Soviet War video and quite a few commenters raised errors, something I haven't seen very often. I too raised concerns with a video on the Pacific War by posting a comment and he did not reply, despite my comment being respectful, considered and measured.
@@ericadams3428
I've noticed this rather soon in his content, if it wasn't simply trying to ride coattails of trendy subjects/channels
Needless to say: I quit watching his channel pretty quickly
@@montecarlo1651 Same here, his video on the IJN submarine campaign on the east coast of Australia was utterly woeful, despite providing polite corrections and exhaustive directions to first person source materials, no reply was received, nor and of far greater importance, were any corrections ever made to his wholesale distortions and omission of many well-known historic facts. The inherent disrespect for and outright erasure of the sacrifices of the fallen which this type of historic stewardship, that shamelessly and solely prioritises individual pecuniary interests, is an outrageous disgrace and its insult indeed only compounded by his fawning and patently false claims to the contrary. Felton likes history, but the ruthless inflation of his own personal ego is of far greater priority to himself regardless of the memory of other's ancestors.
You’ve done a wonderful service to history by addressing this so thoroughly.
Indeed I have. Thank-you
That was as thorough and meticulous a dismantling of an argument as I've ever seen.
A " good spanking " is the term i prefer !! 😊
👍
The MFP video is quite embarrassing . Historians should deal in facts and quote sources, that video was lacking in both.
@@ericadams3428 Its unfortunate because i used to like that channel. I could forgive some minor inaccuracy if it was committed unintentionally but that video was way over the line.
@@ericadams3428 Mr. Felton must of have had a bit too much to drink after the Liverpool football game that day!!
I fear that for volume of content and sensational headlines the level of historical accuracy is becoming strained in some quarters - to the extent I find myself grinding my teeth in exasperation as I know they could do so much better! Thank you Greg for keeping the faith - you may not get as many views as a result - but you are so greatly appreciated!!
This wasn't the worst Mark Felton has claimed. He tends to get things wrong often. But the worst thing is that he plagiarizes his content. He a shameless thief.
Well, I'll put it more bluntly. His channel exists only to enrich his wallet and his ego. As a source of educational content, it has zero credibility.
He's a businessman, not an historian.
@@leoa4c So a doctorate in history and authoring 20 books means what?
@@kelvinh8327 I guess that means 21 grains of salt.
@@kelvinh8327 Many doctors in many fields have lost their doctorates over the years.
Do you know why? Because ethics mean more than any book or any piece of paper.
Yes, ethics do matter, even in 2022.
Greg, I seriously love your monotonous, matter of fact delivery. Your research is thorough and impeccable. Keep up the great work!
BUT ONLY IF ---YOU--WANT IT TO BE.
I'm not an aviator or sailor but a humble soldier. All our tanks had either bright (almost neon-like) green or white paint on the inside of our tanks to assist with seeing inside a dark, buttoned up tank or operating at night. I think the white in the cockpit would reflect instead of absorbing solar heating, just like the difference between white concrete and black asphalt on a hot day. The tops of our tanks in Iraq would get so hot sitting in the sun. Sometimes we couldn't tactically get into shade and we'd need gloves to keep from burning our hands. Any bottles of water put in the roof would almost instantly be too hot to drink.
Greg is ceding the point about paint color because (I think) there are so many other problems with MFP as to be silly.
I have read that the A-12/SR-71 were painted black because black radiates heat better than other colors and friction buildup of heat was a very big issue with those planes.
Reading the comments it appears that MFP it’s as interested in factual accuracy or citing source material.
@@colinjohnson5515 Black doesn't radiate heat better. It does absorb radar signals better.
The B-29 that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki (Bockscar) spent a bunch of time circling around waiting to meet up with the instrument and camera planes (some of which didn't make the rendezvous). It then headed to Kokura, it's primary target, and flew over the city three times looking for a break in the clouds. It then headed to it's secondary target, Nagasaki. When they got there, they started to worry about fuel... they actually had more than enough, it's just that there was a problem with the fuel pump in one of the tanks and they couldn't get it to turn on. Point being that the B-29 had some serious range.
@@dmunro9076 Absolutely right on. I served on Okinawa in the late 50s and early 60s as a Sea Bee. I visited the air base where Bock's car landed low on fuel. There was a plaque there.
@@dmunro9076 Yep. The fuel pump problem was detected in preflight but it was decided to continue rather than delay to fix or swap planes. There were a number of problems on that mission. Wouldn't have happened with Tibbets in charge...
Tough spot so disarm the bomb or not if the fuel pump goes bad? I'd leave it armed and go down with the plane based on how the Japanese treatment was of allied service men
@@danpatterson8009 Maybe, but they were all keyed up for this mission and they might have all made the same choices. The reality is that this history is already written and is what it was.
I was aware of part of that. Thanks for filling in the holes
“It was US pride” or “it was political” seem to be the go-to canards (no pun intended) when arguing against US equipment.
One irony is that as expensive as the Manhattan Project was, it was, in fact, not the most expensive project of World War II. The most expensive project was, of course, the B-29. And as I recall, it wasn't a small amount by which the B-29 was more expensive.
The guy who lived across the road from me when I was a kid was a former B-29 pilot who flew in WWII from the Marianas. After I left home, my parents had a decent amount to do with him - his wife had died and he was lonely. They'd take him out to lunch every month or so in the weekend. It was clear that being a B-29 bomber pilot haunted him. It was massively formative for him. You think about those missions - way up high, hours and hours before you got to your target, hours and hours on the way back. As big as the B-29 was, you're just a speck in the sky over thousands of miles of largely empty ocean. And the aircraft were on the edge of possible technology, so they broke, a lot.
And most of these people were young men in their 20s.
That picture at 31:18 shows a Lanc the RAF developed with a gigantic saddle tank that ran the length of the top of the plane. This was done to give the plane the range to bomb Japan. The tank was so large that it completely changed the appearance of the plane and eliminated the dorsal turret. The weight of all that extra fuel also drastically reduced the bomb load. The design was completely mad and never got beyond the prototype.
Imagine it starts leaking.
Hope it was well baffled, 'trim-wheel-city' with that lot sloshing about up there . . . then there's hard braking : )
One unlucky shot from an arisaka and the crew risks being drowned! 🤣
@@berryreading4809 Or even a Nambu Type 94! LOL....
@@berryreading4809 🤣
7 years ago I would have donated large amounts. I look forward to all your work. I guess it's bad luck for us both. I'm living on the edge now so your work is on point, accurate ,and a joy to watch.
Thanks.
I hope things turn around for you Nick!
@@life_of_riley88
Thanks, I'm working on it. 🙏
This was extremely interesting. I remember watching the MFP video in question and finding it interesting as well. I much prefer knowing the truth however and you have very thoroughly investigated it and presented it, thank you!
I quite enjoy the approach you've taken in this video.
You've shot the horse, then you've gone and repeatedly beaten the dead horse over and over again so it doesn't even look like a horse anymore.
"But why beat a dead horse?...I mean other than for the pure joy of it!" -Hunter S. Thomson
@@gumbykevbo to keep the other horses in line
or braying Jack Asses
You can hear in his voice that the misconceptions of Mark Felton and others annoy him.
It's good that he's clearing those misconceptions.
I find I'm a bit annoyed myself. Honest mistakes are one thing and even the best historians make them. Considering the quantity and magnitude of mistakes in the Felton vid, I don't think they qualify has honest.
@@rrice1705 👍
They are totally DISHONEST. AND totally DECEPTIVE. Thank you Greg for exposing Felton and those who drank his Koolaid.
My dad retired from the Air Force from the 55th Wing at Offutt AFB back in 1997. As a retirement gift he received a piece of the wooden block flooring used in the factory that built the Silverplate bombers. They had turned the factory into a large MWR facility and had removed the old flooring.
I saw the Mark Felton Production, big fan of most of his work, and this one seemed "odd". I can see why the Lancaster early would have been considered due to its large bomb bay but it flew much lower than even the B-17 and was so slow actually dropping the atomic bomb would have been a suicide mission for the crew. The Enola Gay and Boxcar dropped from a high elevation, the bomb had a parachute to slow it (er, seems it didn't. OOPS!), and the B-29 top speed was what ever they did flying away. (did they have a nitro boost on them?) The blast still shook the planes. In this case Mr Felton's claim that mere pride required the use of an American plane is sad and discrediting of his other worthy work.
There's nothing like a bit of USA-Brit banter. Unless you're deluded, the B-29 was the girl for the job.
I doubt there'd have been any difficulty in recruiting aircrew for an extremely dangerous mission from either the USAAF or the RAF, though the latter must be been very fatigued by that point. The 1944/early 1945 raids over Germany weren't milk runs.
the bombs had no parachute, they where free falling
thats why the special escape maneuver was needed, and even then the shockwave shuck the plane quite a bit
I feel the need to mention my 98 year old, and still stunningly active, father is a USAAF veteran who trained for the B-29. He was support rather than flight and as a child I would read the B-29 maintenance manual he brought home.
"the bombs had no parachute, they where free falling"@@IronPhysik
Did some reading. I was wrong and have no idea where the parachute idea came from.
I don't know, I feel like this a good example of the flaws with his work. He often takes things that were considered or mentioned, even if only barely, and acts like it was some sort of fully planed or staffed operation that almost happened. Does it pretty often.
Epic takedown !! When facts meet fiction. Noticed a while ago Feltons stories often omitted or skewed things…. Thank you
HA HA ha Greg has many times has done similar E.G/ Ignored WW2 tests on his beloved P47 , Said that Captain Eric Brown did not know what he was talking about when Brown was one of the team that tested the bloody thing
I finished my MA in history with a capstone essay on the Granville Raid in 45’. I examined it’s causality which entailed a great deal of research from first hand accounts on the Channel Islands to official reports from ULTRA and the American National Archives. Mark Felton had done a video on the raid and ironically inspired me to research it for my capstone.
I was sort of ashamed to learn that plenty of inconsistencies are apparent in that video that he did, titled “Hitler’s Sea Wolves”. Some claims that he puts forward I found zero evidence for in either primary or secondary sources.
Being clear, I don’t expect absolute ironclad evidence for a RUclips video, but if MF claims he is a historian, this showing doesn’t endear me to his “real” work. It is just entertainment though I suppose.
While I am not an expert on Lancasters, the Manhattan Project or the bomb, I am glad to see that some other experts are pointing out inconsistencies with his videos. Well done.
I think it runs far deeper than that and I don't believe that anyone, least of all someone who publicly attempts to afford himself accreditation as an expert by claiming to be a professional historian, has the right to take liberties with the stewardship of history in any regard, least of all for entertainment or even worse, for financial gain which is akin to grave-robbing in terms of such a subject as military history. I stated looking into him after viewing Felton's video on the IJN submarine campaign on the east coast of Australia, which was utterly woeful, despite providing polite corrections and exhaustive directions to first person source materials, no reply was received, nor and of far greater importance, were any corrections ever made to his wholesale distortions and omission of many well-known historic facts.
My enquiries showed that he indeed has a long history of inherent disrespect for and outright erasure of the sacrifices of the fallen which this type of historic stewardship, that shamelessly and solely prioritises individual pecuniary interests through lazy or non-existent research in preference for sensationalism results in. However, for him to persist in this manner after having the shortcomings of this conduct drawn to his attention elevates this to an outrageously disrespectful disgrace, and its insult is indeed only compounded by his fawning and patently false claims to the contrary. Felton likes history, but the ruthless inflation of his own personal ego is of far greater and in fact singular priority to himself regardless of and all-too-often at the sacrifice of the memory and accurate record of other people's ancestors.
Glad you're around, Greg. Fan of all your vids. Well researched, well put together, great listening material for interesting and obscure topics.
Well done , great job clearing up this misconception of MFP. I can't believe he went there and in my opinion his credibility has suffered as a result of him doing so.
@ICE69ROG : Absolutely, his credibility has suffered. It was already half out the window as far as I am concerned.
@@quaver1239 Felton is a proven serial plagiarist, many of the 'scripts' of his videos are taken verbatim from and without any credit to the intellectual property of actual genuine historians, even more directly from Wikipedia which itself attests strongly to both their credibilty and political biases to say nothing of his own abject laziness. The sycophants who post the most nauseatingly slavish and servile tributes under his videos claiming that he is the pre-eminent expert on military history only reiterate the truth that the vast majority of the general public are themselves abject imbeciles coddled within a self-delusional fog of classic Dunning-Kruger effect.
What credibility? He's always been a spurious hack.
This confirms my long-standing suspicion that Felton's objectivity and trustworthiness are seriously compromised by his jingoism.
The Royal Navy did make a limited return to the Pacific in 1943. The US Navy was down to one operating carrier (USS Saratoga) while waiting for the new Essex class carriers to arrive. The Royal Navy obliged by sending HMS Victorious operating under the name USS Robin. The US Navy badly needed an extra flight deck, while the Royal Navy wanted to learn about US Navy flight operations. The pilots would practice flying off and landing on either flight deck. The US pilots liked the Robin because they could get a rum issue, the British pilots liked the Saratoga because they could get ice cream.
They also sent a whole fleet/US carrier task force in 44 after Normandy.
The BPF fascinates me for some reason, I wish they got to see more action.
So the British like ice cream and the American like something alcoholic
Now what do i do with these information
@@twddersharkmarine7774 mix them?
@@SpiritOfMontgomery It was a logistics nightmare, extending that supply chain all the way back to Britain, and too much stuff was incompatible with the US supply chain. It was an ego fleet. It was useful to the war effort, but cost more than Britain could afford.
Great video. I stopped watching MFP over a year ago after I had watched enough of the videos to realize most were just sensationalist or else speculative. A lot of the history/military/hardware channels on youtube seem to be tied in one way or the other with the wargaming community, such as WOT, War Thunder, etc, and while its great a new generation is being exposed to the history and is interested, the downside is a lot of the fanboyism and speculative stuff from the games is blurring into the actual history now.
Pretty much the same for me. I gave up on that channel when I realised that they were presenting their videos as hard facts without sources and without any critical discussion of conflicting sources. The M8 Greyhound vs King Tiger 1944 video is a good example of this. His sources are a reddit post and a tank wiki. There is no discussion about the plausibility of that account, the other conflicting accounts, nor the fact that there is no surviving record of Tiger II tanks in that area for the event. The video is just presented as cold hard facts.
I'm not sure how much gaming has got to do with it, there are plenty of reasons someone might be biased towards an unrealistic view of a particular machine - or just biased towards exciting sensationalist stories for that matter - which don't require that they be a gamer. Besides, Felton's channel doesn't have direct connections to gaming, does it?
well put Sir. i also dumped the MFP 12 months ago
Mark Felton's videos are entertaining, but you have to account for his pro British bias.
@@ollimoore
He's frequently sponsored by the studios that produce World of Tanks/Warships and Warthunder.
Credit where its due, he does regularly discuss obscure subjects I've been unaware of, unfortunately when he covers something I am familiar with I can spot the frequent glaring errors, bassically his channel is only good as a jumping off point when something peaks my interest.
I’m British. Born in ‘72. My grandfather served in the RAF during WWII (an electrician on Beaufighters, mostly). I’m afraid the MFP story is very attractive to believers of our national myth. Furthermore, it is a legacy of a sentiment my mother’s generation had about brash, overconfident Americans, overloaded with cash, but short on ingenuity. That myth of ours consists of many threads: Barnes Wallis, the TSR-2, and the Vulcan. All things to be rightly proud of, but over-emphasised and given a significance way beyond their actual impact. I’m proud of my grandfather’s generation, but I can’t stand this insecurity we have as a nation. Anyhow, thanks for this video, your diligence, expertise, and humility! Oh, and that marvellous Beaufighter video (both the talk about the aircraft, and the trip to the kit manufacturer!).
I wouldn't say it's just a British mindset. I've spoken to enough people from all over to hear just how proud people are to talk about the heroes of their nation. I was speaking with some Poles the other week, and they talked how Rurik of Kievan Rus was afraid of going into Poland because of how mighty warriors they were. There's not even that concrete proof of Rurik actually existing, and what he thought. The word "Slave" comes from the word "Slav" after all the slave raids into slavic lands, so it's unlikely there was anything to be particularly scared of in war.
Every culture acts in a certain way due to it's history. Like with the example above, Eastern Europeans are naturally quite insular from all the constant conflict for millenia, but also desperate to prove themselves in prestige and fight for their national identity. Probably with British people it'll be the cultural belief in their superiority as the greatest empire and as a civilising force, with then rapid downfall after the Great war and being overtaken by the rest of the world. After being the best for probably two centuries, it's hard to admit that maybe others just ended up doing things better, that they aren't taking shortcuts. It's just how people work, always have, and always will do.
And yea, stories like MFP do are incredibly popular. I once thought reenactors know a lot about history, but they're passionate and do it for joy, not for actual study. Too many people like to hear a small little contrarian story because it's: interesting and it feels like you've unlocked a new secret about the world and everyone else is dumb.
but short on ingenuity LOLOLOLOL
Get back to me when you put a man in space let alone to the moon.
@@fawnlliebowitz1772 I think you misunderstood my post.
Could be if so my apologies. @@leobrancovich1743
And you are forgetting how generous we Brits are Leo, we gave the jet engines we developed to the US for their help in the war, but to be even handed we also sold some to the Soviets so that they could make the Mig 15, a formidable aeroplane.
This is truly an excellent video!
One question arises for me, however: the stated 80 to 85% loss rate for Lancaster missions over Japan. To be clear: even when taking the lower 80% figure, that still means that 4 out of 5 aircraft will be lost PER RAID. That simply cannot be true. Even if every raid would be as devastating as, for example, the all-Lancaster Dresden bombing, it still means losing 640 out of 800 Lancasters that participated in the raid. And please keep in mind, by 1945 RAF Bomber Command could probably muster something in the region of 1000 operable Lancasters (again, I am not sure here, but the maximum effort Dresden raid with 800 Lancasters gives some perspective)
I see 2 possibilities here:
- the 80 to 85% loss rate refers to a crew's chance of completing their 30 mission tour, which would probably be roughly in line with a crew's survival chance over Germany in 1943 (loss rate somewhere around 3 to 5 percent would be my guess)
- or there was simply a mistake and 8 to 8,5 percent are meant, which would still be absolutely dreadful survival odds, see above.
Would be happy to hear your opinion.
I certainly don't think it's per mission, but the specifics are not stated.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Greg, this MFP video caused me to unsubscribe: ruclips.net/video/i5D50WWIZyg/видео.html
I am curious about this for the same reasons as you
The dresden raid was at night, early in the war the british tried daylight bombing with lancasters and suffered a 60% loss rate and that wasn't even a deep penetration. Thus the lancaster was relegated to night missions only in contested airspace
The one time lancasters tried daylight bombing in a contested area they suffered over a 60% loss rate from a single squadron of fighters.
The Lancaster was a good aircraft, but saying it would be seriously considered as an atomic bomber is like saying the B-24 would be.
In principle one could try a mission with such a bomber, but the B29 is a generation beyond the Lancaster and it shows in performance.
The people in charge were too smart for this idea to be true.
When the RAF needed a nuclear capable bomber in the early 1950's they used B-29's, calling them "Washingtons".
@@fafner1 exactly just like the Russian did with their copied version of the B-29
I would say a modified B-24 was a better contender for dropping A-bombs then the Lancaster. I totally agree with your comment
It’s arguably two generations considering the Lanc was made to meet a pre-war spec from the air ministry for a heavy bomber. Which is remarkable considering what it did. The Lincoln should have been used like the Lancaster was, with the Lanc going the same way as Halifax and Stirling (transport, supply drops, airborne ops)
@@Bryan-cs9to would have been the B-32
The UK didn't even use the Lincoln as a nuclear bomber postwar, they leased B-29s.
Did the British use B29's (aka Washington's) as nuclear platforms? From my research it wasn't until the introduction of the V-bombers that Britain had a deployable nuclear deterrent.
For their delivery the Brits went to the Buccaneer
I'm British and I've never heard of the Lancaster ever being considered in the nuclear role. I just don't think it happened. Tiger Force was something entirely different, and let's face it was envisaged before anybody even knew about the atom bomb. Before the atom bomb the war "might" have dragged on another year and Tiger Force "might" have had a conventional bombing role to play, but the two atom bombs rendered it superfluous overnight ( thank goodness). Where I might differ is that there definitely were plans to use Liberators in the air to air refueling role refueling Lancasters, but again, how far those plans had evolved into reality is anybodys guess. That Tiger Force was planned at all indicates that the range issues had been resolved one way or another. What would be the point if they hadn't ? Look up " Tiger Force " on Wikipedia. It is quite interesting. Personally I think Tiger Force would have been a disaster anyway as RAF aircrew were worn out by the European bombing campaign and our aircraft unsuitable for the most part to Far Eastern operations. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force_(air)
The B-29 was fitted with the Lancaster bomb suspension system used for the 20 ton Grand Slam bomb.
So a Lancaster could physically carry an atomic bomb.
The replacement to the Lancaster - the Lincoln - did drop nuclear weapons over Australia for testing.
Avro Lincoln’s were deployed to the Far East in August 1945.
@@allangibson2408 It's not the ability to carry that is in question. It's the complexity of the systems to support carrying a nuclear weapon that wartime Lancasters could not possibly have been adapted to in the time frame, certainly not in Tiger Force. Once you go testing in peacetime anything is possible, and they certainly didn't need long range to test nuclear bombs in Australia. Also you need to consider the secrecy surrounding "Manhattan". Nobody in the RAF knew anything but the sketchiest rumours of a super weapon.
@@timhancock6626 The early nuclear weapons were less complicated than the Grand Slams.
The suspension system was exactly the same.
And as I said - the LINCOLN would have been the obvious choice.
The only difficulty would be access to the bomb casing to insert the last of the fissile material (which would have required a hole in the bomb bay roof and a platform to stand on.
The operational difficulty with the Lancaster’s and Lincoln’s was that they were unpressurised making the required high altitude flying extremely uncomfortable. (That’s why the British bought the B-50).
So technically possible but politically improbable.
The RAAF operated modified Lincoln’s that operated at 45,000ft with the crew in full pressure suits to drop the test weapons in Australia. That was to gather ballistic data for the British V-bomber force. Six highly modified Lincoln’s didn’t have much value after this so they were scrapped in Australia.
@@allangibson2408 But that was years later so perfectly possible. In the wartime scenario it was not a starter unless the Americans asked us, and they didn't.
@@allangibson2408 interesting - on checking Jackson's Avro history (Putnam), it seems Lincoln service trials didn't start with 57 and 44 squadrons until September of 1945, and the first overseas mention I can find of Lincolns is only in October of 1946. Also, no atomic weapons were ever dropped from Avro Lincolns; the first British free fall weapon - Blue Danube in 1956 - being too heavy for anything except the Vickers Valiant.
Once again another fantastic video Greg. I learned so much from this video about the Avro Lancaster. I have always loved this plane. Thank you so much for covering this topic. I had heard the Lancaster as an alternate to the B-29 story before and always had my doubts especially when it came to range? Nevermind the altitude and fending off what few Japanese fighter planes might have been left?
Thank you Greg for the well researched and factually backed video. I watch MFP videos a lot, I enjoy them but was disappointed that more myth than fact was used on his atomic Lancaster video. Thanks again for the excellent videos, much appreciated.
20:08 "Armed" doesn't even begin to describe the danger. While an implosion type bomb can be set on fire with no danger of a nuclear explosion, an armed gun type bomb will almost certainly undergo a full nuclear detonation if set on fire.
Felton,s channel is played out.. He is starting to struggle coming up with new episode material..He is pushing the envelope and reaching for provocative creative new insight
Excellent video Greg. Recently I've learned that MFP is a very dubious source of info on WW2 in general. Good to see some very knowledgeable people biting back as of late. Keep up the good work
It's a shame they didn't just scrap the B-32 project, and fast-tracked the B-36 instead. The Peacemaker would definitely have been a game changer.
I am very disappointed with Marc Felton. Almost all of these RUclips producers are just doing sloppy work in order to produce a lot of content, very very poor content
No not so many of Mark Feltons videos are very accurate for us Brits and C/Wealth people.
@@steveperreira5850 And so is many Americans on here.
1st class Greg. .. a respectful counter balance presentation based on well researched , and aircraft centric knowledge.
An interesting thought for a future presentation might be the RAF Squadron that did reached Australia late in the war equipped with twin Hi Ball anti shipping Mosquitos
I just re-watched this video from start to finish again for the second time. I'm struck by how many details Mark Felton just made up out of thin air. It's quite disturbing. No historian should ever invent facts just to get more views or sell more books. Greg says he's not judging the man or his entire body of work, just that one video. Well, I'm gonna say that I *AM* judging the man, and what I see is a dishonest historian making shyt up.
I'd say the right way to judge someone, and we do this sort of thing without thinking about it as a formal model, is to say what are the odds of this result being the result of honest mistakes? If the conclusion is that result is too low then we conclude the person is inherently dishonest and should disregard them as a source.
I can't imagine how MFP could possibly get things so wrong without outright dishonesty. This is a case where I am not going to watch any of his videos ever again because he clearly is doing something very wrong to have gotten this result.
@Fava Beans Blink 3 times if Mark Felton's knife menaces your taint and balls.
Send pics if he cut off your ears.
Argue further if he has performed the lobotomy.
@Beavis If you would think instead of just listening you might learn something.
Generally I enjoy Felton's work but its noteworthy that on way to many of his videos I find factual errors. I have even commented on a few. Never get a response or a correction. But those errors were small. This one was a whopper!
Awesome video as always Greg, enjoyed it! As an ex USAF jet jokey who spent quite a bit of time flying KC-135s and refueling other hungry for Jet-A I like to think I know a few things about refueling mid air. In order for air to air refueling to work IT HAS TO BE SUCCESSFUL! If the rendezvous fails or the equipment fails you have a failed mission. If you don’t have a successful hookup with your tanker you need to be able to fly to your alternate with whatever fuel you have in your tanks. Not very many options in the pacific for this work. I don’t really care how many tanker Lancaster you think you need, your going to at least double it or triple your number of backups for such a critical mission. That is a lot of airplanes beyond the planned mission support aircraft (wx/photo etc) increasing the chances of a ground abort. OK rant off, great video!
As a USAF Fighter pilot (long Retired) just wanted to thank you and all the others in the Big Friendlies for the gas. The Air Superiority of the US and our Allies was achieved due to our air-to-air capabilities. Now, about my Green Stamps...
@@itsjohndell due to budgetary concerns, we have suspended our green stamp program......😀
@@chrisvandecar4676
Did you happen to The Operations Room's video on the Vulcan raid on the Falklands?
11 tankers for 2 bombers, one of which was a reserve (which proved necessary).
Even with explanation, I still don't fully understand the Refueling Plan 😆🙈
Really increased my respect for the RAF's professionalism!
Lots of stories from that war. One I heard when I was TDY to Castle AFB, CA; they have a Vulcan at in their museum there, once the Falklands kicked off, a few RAF personnel arrived and removed the refueling probe from the museum's Vulcan as it was needed to install on one of the RAF's active Vulcans😀
A good historian shows their sources.
I’ve got to say Greg is extremely good at exposing the flaws in some of my favourite historic aircraft. And to be honest although it’s disappointing to realise I held views which were not well supported by the facts, it’s better realise I was in error and move on.
Thank you Greg.
Go further. The question is why did you hold incorrect views in the first place. Also, Greg is a pilot, not an historian.
@@seanm2511 Greg is quite a good amateur historian even if he has made no claims to be one and he usually has multiple sources whereas Dr Felton’s sources often remain a mystery.
Why was I wrong?
1. I was emotional invested in an aircraft I liked.
2. I was not sufficiently educated as to that facts.
3. I wasn’t sufficiently skeptical of the facts presented in the MFP video. The story was entertaining and I was amused at Mark Felton’s habit of picking stories that sticks it to the US. Being amused however should not be an excuse and I’m not going to hide behind it.
I’d now like to hear Greg’s take of the MFP video on the Cold War Avro Vulcan raid on the USA where the UK managed to infiltrate through the USA air defences and simulate bombing US cities.
Great historians never do.
@@DNModels Yes and I see by your lack of references we are in the presence of greatness. ;-)
It's indeed good that he shows sources. At the same time those sources don't really support what he says. He claims that there were no political reasons but at 4:54 it is obvious in the text that Arnold did not want a British plane to deliver "our" bomb. A very clear political reason.
And at 05:04 Greg says: On this page he points out that the bombs themselves changed a bit making them easier to fit the B29.
But that is not what the page says. The page states that the bombs were changed to make them fit the B29. That is different.
It's good to see the sources so that we know Greg very much reads what he wants to read in the sources. Just like Mark Felton does.
It's very obvious that the Lanc was not seriously considered for political reason. So both Greg and Mark are both partly right and partly wrong.
The lancaster was a great warbird, but the first time i heard of this a-bomb/Lancaster link, i immediately thought , no way that was EVER gonna happen. First off, the B-29 was a next generation aircraft, faster, longer ranging and higher flying, the crew training was on another level even leaving aside the atomic bomb complexity, then theres the security aspect. Even the crews themselves had no idea why they were learning what they eere learning, nothing of official information was divilged until they were en route to the pacific. Paul Tibbets was the only member of any of the flight crews who actually knew what the mission was. As close allies as the british were, this was too close-hold for them to have been involved. Never been much of a Felton fan, but this kinda tanishes any credibility he might have had
Greg, I really support your effort to counter misinformation. Also, thank you for making accommodations for audio only listeners.
Thank god someone is calling felton out on his bullshit. He's gotten in trouble several times recently with his shoddy/jingoistic work. He has a very high reputation in the UK, but that is to be expected, he uncritically regurgitates British WW2 propaganda, as this response video highlights, with depressing regularity.
A new word was invented to fully describe what happened to the 6,000,000...
This channel and Caliban seem to be the only channels that understand that both the mosquito and Lancaster have both been lionized in a crazy way post WW2
Caliban is pretty awesome.
Thanks Greg. When I first saw the Mark Felton RUclips video on the Lancaster as a possible atomic bomb delivery vehicle, I thought it seem a little difficult to believe. I didn’t realize how much of a “fantasy” it was. I really appreciate all the efforts that go into your very well researched videos.
The funny part is how many people bought it hook line and sinker.
Wasn’t the B 32 Dominator the backup plan if the B 29 was a bust? I know it had some development problems too (as all aircraft do-certainly in wartime), but it did bomb Japan a few times, so it clearly could reach the target, the fact that only a little over 100 were made strongly suggests to me that the USAAF had concluded that either the B 29 was good to go, or had a clear path to success which allowed them to cut short the B 32 program.
Ya I think they funded them just because of the war. I think once the prototypes were airborne the performance difference between the two relagated the Dominator to minor bombing and transport missions. I think the last US plane attacked in WW 2 involved a pair of B-32's.
The B-32 was supposed to be a cheap, quick, low-risk alternative to the B-29, without all the fancy gadgetry that ran up the program cost and development time of the Superfortress. Unfortunately the B-32 program ran into problems of its own; and by the time the first examples were ready for delivery to the AAF, the B-29 was already in combat (and was generally a better airplane).
@@Philistine47
The B32 wasn't supposed to be a cheap low risk alternative to the B29, it just turned out that way.
The USAAC knew in the late 30's that the development of a bomber for the specifications they'd laid down was going to be a big gamble due to some of the requirements of the specifications, so instead of putting all their eggs in one basket they awarded both Boeing and Consolidated contracts to develop bombers to the specifications laid down, it was a "whoever crosses the finish line first" kind of deal.
The B32 originally had the same type of complex defensive fire control system made by Sperry that the B29 had, but the problem that Consolidated had was with pressurizzing the airframe, Boeing had successfully managed to get the pressurized fuselage of the B29 to work so that put them ahead of Consolidated in producing a bomber to the specifications laid down by the Army, once it was apparent that the B29 was going to beat the B32 into production the pressurized fuselage of the B32 was dropped turning it into a medium level bomber along with the remote fired defensive guns being dropped in favor of the conventionally fired defensive guns, both being done to expedite it's development in the interest of converting existing B17 and B24 units in the Pacific over to B32 since it still would have a longer range than them, however other production delays prevented even that from happening.
The B32 does however have the distinction of being the last Allied aircraft to have seen combat in WW2, there was some type of an incident where after the Japanese surrendered some Japanese fighter pilots attacked a B32.
The B-32 was more a backup program to the B-29 than anything, although I would like to see Greg make a video about it and why it failed if possible. The last WWII engagement was indeed two B-32 Dominators (Hobo Queen II, which gained altitude and evaded, and an unnamed aircraft that was quite badly shot up, and which produced the last aerial casualty of the War, Sergeant Anthony Marchione). The unnamed Dominator was intercepted by over a dozen IJN aircraft (mostly Zeroes with two or three Georges) under Saburo Sakai's command (they were quite drunk at the time, I should add; not Sakai's best showing and he does not mention it in his autobiography). She was hit more than a few times and rather remarkably managed to keep going. But the Dominator had issues with the engines overheating really badly and the solenoids that deployed the landing gear "firing" at random (which is what killed Hobo Queen II; her nose gear retracted suddenly while parked!). The B-32 WAS looked at as an atomic bomber, but with the B-35 and B-36 coming online, plus the XB-44 which in turn became the B-50, the USAAF just figured "okay, we do not need this."
@@Philistine47 The B-32 was supposed to have the gadgetry, it just didn't all seem to work in the B-32 and some of it was eliminated to save weight and cost.
Greg, outstanding as always. Here's an issue you might consider. Would you address the F4u Corsair and the initial problems the US Navy experienced in approving it for carrier operations. There are many articles out there claiming one thing or another regarding who solve the carrier landing issues. Maybe you can clear up who actually solved the landing gear, the wing stall, tail wheel assembly, cowling flaps, etc. Although the carrier approach issue was solved by the Brits, I'm wondering about the aircraft design features and who actually solved them.
Jup and the strange part is that VF-17 was allowed to set sail on Bunker Hill to the Southwest Pacific. During which time they ofcourse flew of the carrier.
Near the end of the cruise to the Southwest Pacific area the decision was made for VF-17 to leave the carrier to simplify logistics.
This story just gives me the feeling that there were other reasons than the Corsair's carrier suitability. I guess it really depends on the definition carrier suitability, but things relating to that would probably more accurate reasons.
I know the USN put air valves in the struts to control the boucing when the F4 landed on carriers
Yes this would be an awesome topic
@@martijn9568 The reason was they couldnt figure out how to land them on carriers because of the long nose obstructing the view.
It was the British that perfected the technique of coming around just abaft of the carrier for a controlled approach, then they taught the Americans, then the Americans, who up until that point had used them in land based operations, started using the Corsairs extensively off of carriers as well.
@@ToreDL87 Yeah, so that's just a moot point. VF-17 actually demonstrated that they could safely land Corsairs on aircraft carriers. They were only removed from their carrier after getting "close" to the area of operations.
Greg, Yet another awesome video! I truly loved it. I watched the MFP video and accepted it as fact. Your arguments are bulletproof. Thanks for setting the record straight. On another note. I was a global base engine design manager for one of the big three. If you ever feel the need to connect. That would be cool. Thanks again for the video. All the best. Chuck
Terrific video Greg. Now THAT is what i call a thorough and polite rebuttal! After the War, did the British ever consider the Avro Lincoln as an atomic bomber? I know that issues with the bomb bay ultimately hindered the Lincoln and forced them to to switch to the Boeing Washington (a.k.a. the B-29) in 1950. The Aussies also tested two ex-Washingtons once the Canberra was ready, but that went nowhere.
The First British A-Bomb was 17 feet long, had a diameter of 62 inches and weighed in at around 10,000lb. You couldn't get the thing into a B-29. The RAF binned the Washington (B-29) in 1954. The Lincoln was retired as a bomber in Europe in 1955, though aircraft were used in second line roles until 1963 and for operations where there was little to no Air to Air threat.
I never knew there was a Boeing Washington used by the RAF. When I visited Duxford about 10 years ago I was very surprised to see a B-29. I must have missed an explanatory sign - I was somewhat stupefied by the number of aircraft on display. What a variety! There was also an airshow that day. Suffice it to say I was on a heavy sensory overload but I've always remembered the B-29 there. Now I know why it makes sense that the UK displays one - thank you!
I took special note of the B-29 because my dad worked on them in WW2. He was a ground crewman specializing in the electromechanical remote controlled gun turrets. Fortunately for my existence he was only old enough to enter the USAAF late in the war and served on stateside training bases.
I truly appreciate your calm, well researched presentations, exemplified by this video. What I've noticed about your presentations is that you almost always go to the source documents for most of your information (how in the world do you find all this information??). Fascinating look at some of the obscure details that actually explain historical events.
Great work Greg. Leonard Cheshire was one of the leading RAF Bomber Pilots in WW2. He commanded 617 after Guy Gibson, he was experienced at dropping large bombs, the tall boy. Wouldn’t he be the sort of man us Brits would have picked to drop the A-Bomb … maybe MFP could tell us why then that Cheshire was sat in the B-29 Big Stink as an observer.
*_Well Played_*
Because the Americans wanted official British Observers to witness the attack? I mean the answer to that question is really very simple. The British after all had quite a significant role in the Manhattan Project after all, far more of a role than many Americans realise, and than some like to admit. If Cheshire and Perry had not been there another two British RAF officers would have been.
He was simply there as an observer to the event, not as part of the crew. It is also worth bearing in mind that while Cheshire did fly Operational Sorties with 617 Squadron he was not officially supposed to. The RAF rule was that following their 3rd full combat tour pilots and aircrew were not officially permitted to undertake Operational flying. Some like Cheshire ignored that rule, but he was the exception to the rule.
My Great Uncle survived two full combat tours as a Lancaster Rear Gunner, the chances of any air crew surviving one full tour was pretty slim, let alone three. Hence the rule.
@@alganhar1 On both this channel and Mark Felton's, it's nice to find sensible discussions and intelligent debate. Not the usual RUclips offensiveness. Lovely.
@@alganhar1 I was being sarcastic, I know he was an observer.
Hit the nail on head- if the RAF HAD to launch an atomic raid, the selection procedure for who carries it out would have been a two minute chat then a call to 617.
And while it wouldnt have been Cheshire leading the raid, is simply no evidence in the multitude of 617 books and whatever of ANY training or prep for an atomic strike misssion.
(Side note- My mother knew Cheshire, she worked for his charity post war. And on my dads side my gran was a fire warden around the Avro factory in Manchester. hes into his planes, i followed suit. The lanc is a wonderful, wonderful aircraft* but never in all my years have we 2 in this family heard of any hint or rumor of it being considered for the Enola Gay gig.)
but then Felton is a bit of a hack with an alarming percentage of wehraboo and closet nazi/race warrior fanbois
Back to back viewing of the eurocompulsion abath 124 and a break down of missconceaptions surrounding 2 amazing aircraft?! What an awesome evening this has been!
I completely agree with this video. I am a physicist a prepared a ppt preseentation on the development of the "atomic bomb" (Manhattan Project). At that time Tinian had the longest airstrips (4) in the world and any other airfield was out of the queston for the job. (Okinawa was considered and also used as on the way back for emergeny landing, when the aircafts were "light".) Even so, with the necessary fuel and the weight of the bomb, an engine failure during takeoff would have been disatrous. (Think of the A-bomb going off at Tinian instead of Japan!) Captain Wiliam Parsons, head of the Los Alamos bomb design team, who was also on board the Enola Gay, realized this when seeing such an accident just a day before the mission! He decided to personally activate LIttle Boy (Uranium bomb, Hiroshima) in the air. (Think of him working on the U-bomb in the bombbay at 10.000 ft.) This could not be done in case of Fat Man (Plutonium bomb, Nagasaki - an implosion bomb) - you just crossed your fingers. As far as I know the Lancaster was considered first (in 1943) because it could take the large size A-bomb easier due to the development of the Tallboy bomb but B-29s could be adapted realtively easyly. Don't forget that the 309 Composite Group commanded by Col. Paul Tibbets was practicing A-bomb missions with specially adopted B-29s (bombay expanded, turrets removed) since Dec. 1944 with mockup A-bombs (Pumpkin bombers). (At times with real TNT loads over Japan!) (Project Silverplate).
In an interesting historical coincidence, on June 15, 1944, the first US bombing raid on the Japanese home islands since the Doolittle raid was made by B-29s flying from China and the US also invaded Saipan. The US was already using B-29 bombers to attack Japan in June 1944, although the raids were relatively minor and the logistics of supplying fuel and bombs to China by flying them over the 'hump' of the Himalayan mountains verged on the impractical. Once the Marianas island chain was secured and airbases were built, the B-29s moved to Guam, Saipan, and Tinian.
The important takeaway from this is that the US had the ability to attack the Japanese home islands as early as June 1944, and used the Marianas as bases to bomb Japan starting in November 1944. The US didn't need an emergency backup plan to use Lancasters once it had five large bases in the Marianas that could support up to 180 B-29 bombers each, and were fully operational seven months before the first test of the atomic bomb in July 1945.
Exactly - as Greg pointed out towards the end of the video, it was an established design and it’s performance was simply leaps and bounds better than any other bomber in the world.
For good reason as well - most people don’t realize that the Superfortress program cost about $45 billion (with a B!) dollars in today’s $$$, 30% MORE than the entire nuclear weapons program in the US (which in itself saw entire towns built, the largest buildings in the world for plutonium and uranium production, etc.) It was simply a monumental program.
Not to crap on the Lancaster, but the idea that the US would even consider a plane like that while possessing a platform like the B-29 is just laughable.
Exactly - as Greg pointed out towards the end of the video, it was an established design and it’s performance was simply leaps and bounds better than any other bomber in the world.
For good reason as well - most people don’t realize that the Superfortress program cost about $45 billion (with a B!) dollars in today’s $$$, 30% MORE than the entire nuclear weapons program in the US (which in itself saw entire towns built, the largest buildings in the world for plutonium and uranium production, etc.) It was simply a monumental program.
Not to crap on the Lancaster, but the idea that the US would even consider a plane like that while possessing a platform like the B-29 is just laughable.
@@EstorilEm yet the soviets blew the yanks out the water with the tsar bomba and a relatively old TU-95 which is still in russian service...not to crap on the B-29 but the russians do it just that bit better.
@@doctorsocrates4413 when was this supposed to occur?
@@doctorsocrates4413 I guess that they can reverse engineer ok, too bad they fall behind otherwise.
It's relatively easy to tell which RUclipsrs are motivated by money, and which are motivated by sharing knowledge.
I instantly unsubscribe from any channel with clickbait titles/thumbnails, and videos being exactly 10minutes long. It's one thing to have a sponsor/patreon, it's another to have your channel being dedicated to the algorithm.
OK... How about Greg cashing out on 16X more followers ? That was almost bullying with no respect for the guy whatsoever.. Click bait with a purpose...
I'm still subbing to Felton's channel. But he did earn a dislike from me. As it should be rather than simply unsubbing just because you disagree with someone
@@Superbee62 He put a video up on RUclips that was completely fauluse....this is what happens....
@@Superbee62 Greg says he tried to contact MFP and got no response. What more respect is possible?
@@rockoorbe2002 disliking a video also increases its rank in the algorithm, RUclips doesn't care if you dislike a video, if you dislike it enough to watch it they still profit, and the creator profits, which is the real reason they removed the dislike count. What you really need to do to demote a video is not watch it, not dislike it, not like it, not comment it, just do nothing.
Thanks for the necessary correction. Too many RUclips "histories" never cite sources and are indiscriminate about using stock footage. This is a breath of fresh air.
I understand you are an airline pilot? A serious person. I have enjoyed your videos for years.
I am a private pilot. My dad was a search and rescue pilot in vietnam, and flew C 133s before that trans pacific.
My wife's uncle flew B29's in the 40s during ww2 . My recollection of my father and her uncle is that they were steady people.
Dad retired a bird Col. I met Gen. Tibbets at my house on Maxwell AFB in 1982 . I was 14. Dad knew alot of people. Also met Greg Boyington and C Yeager.
This was coincidentally the first Felton vid I ever watched, and immediately I was sus of the farfetched claims and lack of works cited. Very odd for a self-proclaimed historical author. I am no Lancaster or Bomber Command expert, but knew enough to find the fable more fiction than fact. So thank you for taking the time and effort to take analyze and deconstruct this claim.
Great video Greg! I had the pleasure of working in the same building that was to modify the B-29's for the atomic missions. Also, you are correct about FRL (now Cobham Limited) and their dominance in the refueling field. especially their MPRS Pods (Multi Point Refueling System). We would meet with the FRL guys in Bournemouth for "user conferences" and then tour their facilities. Great fun back in the days working with the guys from the USAF, RAF, RAAF. RSAF and FAF personnel.
The B-29 project was more expensive than the bomb itself.
It was one of the largest and the most complex aircraft of its time.
The Lancaster was capable, but nowhere near in the same league.
It was a matter of great prestige for the soviets to build a copy of the b29, not the Lancaster
Also... wasn't there a whole other plane produced by Consolidated in case the B-29 was a turkey?
@@ronniedale6040 and even the tu-95 still has b29 DNA and the russians want to run those till 2040. shows how far ahead the b29 was.
@@420JackG that would be the b32 dominator. Ironically it flew the last combat missions of the war
@@ronniedale6040 - A very precise copy, as they also replicated a small repair patch on the plane's skin.
This is my favorite RUclips channel and the only one I support on Patreon. Work like this is the reason.
It would seem that the 'second choice,' if such a thing could have existed, would have been the B-32.
Bingo. Considering the dominator was always intended as a back up to the B 29, and maybe the only comparable aircraft, that makes sense.
Pretty much standard fare from MFP.
"I feel the need to beat this nonsense to death, so I'm gonna keep going..." THANK-YOU! I love it when facts WIN!
That said, Mark Felton has a very interesting channel, and I highly recommend it to all. But MFP is sometimes a bit sensational.
Only sometimes?
Don't agree...MFP are always 'sensational' and i typically skip them for the reasons Greg brings up
I love MFP opening music score!! Greg can learn from him there!!
replace sometimes with often.
The bloke talks a lot of shit most of the time (I'm a Brit BTW).
"expecting everything to go swimmingly all the time is indicative of a person that has never worked on any technical project of any significance"
This alone is worth the video, the series and the channel.
P A gets it! Thanks.
Guns blazing! Take no prisoners, Greg. Someone had to do it and I trust no one but you to make this callout. Apologies for not being active on your channel for a while. Real life has been a bit rough. Almost 100k!
Hi Asif, I hope you're OK, yes life can be tough, I know you'll pull through it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thank you Greg. You saying that means a lot, more than you'll know.
@@asiftalpur3758 Crawler
I am an avid fan of Mark Felton. I truly hope he takes this criticism constructively!
@LudVan 78 my doubts arose when I started noticing something in the comments section of his videos. You have to scroll for ages before you find a comment that isn't along the lines of 'Dr Felton/Mr Felton, excellent video as always!'. I think he's gained a cult of personality and that's never a good sign - history enthusiasts should know that more than anyone.
@LudVan
I was going to mention the same thing. B-29 was developed with the A-Bomb in mind. And yes, development was more expensive than the A-Bomb.
Side note: read about the Russians program to copy the B-29. 3 “capture” units were used to make somewhat crude copies due to technical shortcomings of the Soviet system. Of course we didn’t want to give it to them voluntarily as it was an A-Bomb delivery tool. They had already stolen our A-Bomb plans.
@@bobkrohn8053 Some could say the B-29 was kind of ripping off the heinkel bomber as it too has the spherical nose.The soviet technical aspects of nuclear bombs are actually more accurate than the americans..the little boy bomb only attained a 0.2% fission point...in fact the tsar bomba was technically the best bomb ever tested..sakharov predicted a 50mt yield before testing...both the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs were woefully inefficient in terms of fission.
@@doctorsocrates4413
Ohhh, so the Heinkel had fully pressurized cabin? Remote Controlled machine guns?etc, etc. More money was spent developing the B-29 than was spent on the A-Bomb.
Any advancements in Atomic Energy by Russia were most assuredly achieved through espionage. Same with space travel. Ever see pics of their aborted space shuttle? Carbon Copy.
@@alexinc.1128 Cult following??? and Greg hasn't?
I’m a bit late to this discussion, I agree with your rebuttal of the Lancaster A bomber thesis. However on flight refuelling you’ve missed some wartime developments. I’d recommend the RAF Historical Society Journal No. 44 originally printed in 2009. The article “Tiger Force and Flight Refuelling “ by Brian Gardner. Most of the journals are online.
There is good evidence that even before VE day UK was planing to switch operations to the Pacific theatre with the dreaded invasion of Japan looming. Of course eliminated by the A bomb. A version of the Mosquito called the Hornet was developed en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet
I have no doubt much planning for many scenario were in motion to end the war as soon as possible with resources already available. Reverse engineering published asset performance today and applying to historical known field situations is only a loose understanding of hypothetical asset application strategic possibilities.
I appreciate all the research that you have done and presented in your videos. Years ago I had paid a visit to the War Eagles Air Museum in Santa Teresa, NM and saw the tabbed pins that were collected on display. An interesting story was told that a German visitor took note of a tabs date and target and realized that he was there that day. Fortunately for him, he was outside of the bombed area.
Wow, that's really something. I hope to get back there, if I do I'll make a video about it.
I used to watch mfp... But the more i learned about the topics portrayed in the videos, the more it seemed like someone on a mission to keep up some sort of 1945 propaganda legacy, reminds me of those tabloid news programs that overdramatise one side of an arguement/point of view so that people who lack basic critical thinking skills are triggered with whatever emotion they wish to enourage the watcher to have.
I had the same, and felt _really_ weird when others commended him for being a historian.
Thanks for de-gaslighting me 😅😆
That video was the first time I watched a MFP video and said “wait, that’s not true” multiple times.
What's ineteresting about his videos is that he often presents them as "another perspective" on popular narratives. I actually don't mind that -- after all, there are as much "truths" as there are people and history *does* get rewritten to paint people and institutions in a better light. As Bismarck pointed out in his vid on Nazi ideals in the Luftwaffe. And as Greg himself pointed out in his vid on P-51 vs P-47 range.
But claiming there are black planes at a certain place at a certain time, that are capable of doing a specific mission -- well, if Felton doesn't have a credible source for that, than I can't justify trusting his other "different perspective" videos either.
@@zJoriz I agree, finding new information, or perhaps from the perspective of the other side compared to popular history is excellent, you need to hear and see both sides information in order to determine the most likely actual events that transpired.
And yes, straight up seemingly making up a list of things that happened is not history, i feel that if someone was going to claim such a story, at least point to where or how you found it out in order for the watcher to go and delve deeper if they wish to know more. If those arent provided, i guess its just a story and should be treated as such
I unsubbed Mark Felton the day that video dropped. With respect for proper history, thank you for doing this.
Now, if we could just get another Greg to go through the rest of his videos…
Captain, this one was the final straw for me: ruclips.net/video/i5D50WWIZyg/видео.html
There's an excellent book called "The Kamikaze Hunters" by Will Iredale that describes the Royal Navy's use of the F4U Corsair in the Pacific towards the end of the war against the Divine Wind, and in its use for ground attack; and also details the ability of their aircraft carrier's steel flight decks to absorb the punishment of an aircraft crashing into it.
Another great video, Greg!
I mean in Post WWII era the RAF bought or leased B-29s and renamed them Boeing Washington, even though its a stopgap for their future V-Bombers, the Washington was the stopgap for the Bomber Command and some of the Washingtons were iirc Silverplate B-29s that were capable of carrying and dropping the Atomic bomb, obviously if they said that Lancaster or Lincoln could be a better bomber than the B-29 if they could be converted into A-Bomb delivery aircraft, then why did the RAF leased or bought the B-29s from the USAF.
Coercion on a massive scale back then by the US Govt. Did everything it could to destroy the British Aero Industry e.g Miles 52 project D/H Comet
The R.A.F. Historic Branch have a standard response they now give to this due to so many enquiries arising from the appealing but false story. Nice if it was true but a myth.
Mark Felton has made quite a few outrageous claims. I stopped subscribing to his channel when he claimed Eagle Squadrons had "fought bravely in the Battle of Britain" when, in fact, the first Eagle Squadron wasn't operational till Feb 1941.
True it's Mark stretching facts to fit his narrative. The first Eagle squadron was formed on 19th September 1940 BUT was not operational until Feb 1941 as you state.
Plus his BS accusing the Deutsches Panzermuseum had sold their Tiger. Easily verifiable facts are a mere inconvenience for him. As he puts fake junk in his work, it becomes hard to trust anything.
And so has Greg
" In January 2022, the German Tank Museum issued a statement responding to a RUclips video Felton had posted, refuting a claim that they had "recently sold a Tiger I to a private collector and replaced it with a 1:1 plastic model." The Museum accused Felton of "...just want[ing] a maximum degree of sensation and emotion in his video, regardless of facts and with minimum workload."[26]"
I offered to debate Mark Felton and got no response.
The Lancaster was a single piloted aircraft. I seriously doubt the United States had much interest in those types of aircraft, for long range bombing. If there was any delay in the B-29 project, surely the B-32 program would have been taken more seriously. Maybe that is something to explore, could the B-32 have carried out a nuclear attack on the Japanese mainland? Good day.
As an Englishman I'm glad you thoroughly debunked this foolish notion. I can see why the Lancaster was initially seen as a fallback bomb carrier but the mission requirements and practicalities ruled it out completely.
Perhaps just as importantly, the USAAF was never going to let any technical issues get in the way of establishing their own post-war atomic weapon delivery capability.
As I understand it, the Lancaster did make one contribution to the Silverplate programme. I believe the actual bomb shackle used the design from the Lancaster's Tallboy & Grand Slam set-up.
The Lincoln was ready to go to the Far East and could have completed the mission The plane was large enough had the range especially since the Atom Bombes were not that heavy They had Merlin 85s a very good engine
It could have been done but as things stood we were not invited
But to say that Britain could not have accomplished it , is stupid
@@jacktattis what’s stupid is not knowing the RAF Lincoln wasn’t even operational until August 1945.
@@treyhelms5282 I just had a look they had the Mk VII ready for Tiger Force April 45
@@jacktattis Source that a squadron was operational with the Lincoln in April 1945? For example, the P-80 was seeing service in late 1944, but none suggested it was ready for combat until 1945.
Also looks like the Lincoln had to use a reduced bombload of 3,000 lbs for very long range missions. Little Boy and Fat Man weighed over 9,000 lbs.
@@treyhelms5282 Great Aircraft of WWII Handbook Abbeydale Press page 135. Any problems contact them
If the Lancaster was such a good fit for the nukes, and the fact that they had a plethora of them, and lots of personel familiar with them, spares, as well as the tooling to manufacture/repair/modify the the things, why did the British BUY the B-29 (the B-50 varient) for use as a nuclear bomber post war? Especially if they already had all the problems involved figured out?
With the litany of logistical tail that would have to be bought and integrated into the RAF?
The altitude, speed, and range limitations not withstanding.
I guess some people just think that operating an aircraft is comparable to operating a truck (which is a bit more complicated than operating a car or pickup but that's a different subject).
Please keep up with your very nuanced videos.
Because the B-29 had a chance of evading a Mig 15 due to the speed and height it could fly , A Lincoln had none!! The RAF didn't get B-50's, they got clapped out old B-29's and had major reliability issues with it.
@@dmunro9076 You didn't read what I said!!!! I said a B-29 had a better chance of evading a Mig 15 than a Lincoln!!!
@@dmunro9076 British didn't buy the B-29 to carry a Nuke!!! the British A Bomb was the size of a Tallboy and was not operational until 1955.
Nukes of that era didn't fit in standard b29s.
Well done Greg, another job well done. I'm a Brit and so I love the Lancaster but historical accuracy is vital. I think people produce these videos laced with bosh, bunkum and balderdash because they can, it makes a good video and the proles will lap it up - Stockholm syndrome as it were.
MFP discounts the US contribution to victory in WWII. That's a common theme to many of his videos and is very obvious to other historians viewing them.
How much credit do you want? Except for a couple episodes covering isolated incidents of captured Germans being killed, I always thought Felton was oddly pro-american.
No incorrect He is there as a British Historian and supports our efforts and leave the exaggerations to the Americans on here.
@@Milkmans_Son They do not like Anglos and Greg is a hero to them They crawl up his bum
No - I don't believe that Mark Felton Productions had anything right. I also answered yes to your question about whether Lancaster could carry nukes, because it was vague. If they were chosen to carry them - they would be modified and nukes would be modified, until mission was possible.
I wish you the very best, stay safe and be well! I will watch this video slightly later, since I have an appointment when you air this. I also do know some things about nuclear weapons.
HA! at 7:20 Greg states - "so that really should be the end of this Video BUT i feel the need to just beat this nonsense to death,so I'm going to keep going" 🤣
Thank you for clearing this matter and applying historical actual data.
Thank. You. I remember seeing that Mark Felton video and being so incredibly put off by it - not because of my "national prestige" but because I knew it was a misreading of sources at best and content creation B.S at worst.
I'm glad you took the time to deconstruct this so thoroughly.
Bravo! When I heard Mark Feldon’s discussion about the aircraft used to drop the bomb I laughed my ass off. The US spend more on the development of the B29 than the cost of the bomb. The Enola Gay and Box Car were purportedly built for this role. I would doubt the the Landcaster could get off the ground, much less make it to the targets, or have the operational ceiling to stay out of harms way.
The USA spent more on the Nordon bombsight than the cost of the bombs too. Ironically the nuclear bombings were some of the very few times they were able to be used for accurate targetting - when precision targetting really didn't matter much
@@miscbits6399 Want to see something look up how much was spent developing the proximity fuse for ordnance. The name doesn’t sound like a big thing, but it was an enormous expense.
@@nofrackingzone7479 Yes, amazing how much R&D gets spent on blowing people up. It was also a closely guarded secret for a long time
WRT the claim of Enola Gay and Bocks Car being built for the role: Not quite but they were modified for it
@@miscbits6399 There were 15 Silver Plate B29 aircraft prepared, along with 15 crews.
I do believe that there were persistent problems with engine fires aboard production B29s?
Speaking as a Brit I'd say you're absolutely spot on here. MFP is a bit of a joke, basically a tabloid site. Keep doing the high quality stuff!
We know that Lancasters WERE prepared withlong-range modifications to drop earthquake bombs on the Honshu bridges. That was openly stated in "The Dambusters" by Paul Brickhill. One of the 617 Squadron personnel is said to have responded light-heartedly to news of the actual A-bombing with the words "They must have heard we were coming." I wonder if this was misinterpreted.
The most expensive world war 2 project delivers the second most expensive weapon
Good job. Your scholarly indignation at Fraudulent Felton a delight. I knew Admiral Ashworth, the weaponeer on Bockscar. He was the USN eyes on both the B-29 program and doings at Los Alamos. He'd been on his way back to the Pacific with an F6F squadron when he got diverted into atomic matters. They picked him because he had aced engineering at Annapolis and gotten a DFC on TBFs. He told me the problems with early 29s scared him far more than glitches on The Hill. Beaucoup engine fires. Anyway, glad to see you set Felton straight. You really ought to be on faculty at a good university.
I promise you, I would not fit in at a modern University.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Good for us, sad but very true for the University system...
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
You'd probably do great here in Nijmegen, in the Netherlands :)
Excellent video, thorough and even-handed as ever. I enjoy both sets of videos, but Greg is the man who has the technical stuff down pat IMO.
I always thought that the "Nuclear Lancaster" theory was hard to take seriously. The B-29 was really a new generation bomber compared to the Lancaster. The Lancaster's range and load capacity were just not comparable to the B-29.
The RAF planned some next gen stuff but WW2 appeared so none got further than paper exercises. The last of the generation leading into that were the likes of the Windsor and its developments which was a bit of a failure. Much as the Lincoln was an improvement over the Mk. I Lancaster it was a comparatively weak affair compared to the proposed super bombers of the B-29 class that were proposed and never built. Against an enemy with operational air defences the Lincoln wasn't going to be able to make it to the target with atomic weapons. The Shackelton did later get rated for nuclear depth charges, though.
As far as an alternate go-to bomber, the US did have a plan if the B-29 didn't pan out as a conventional bomber: The B-32 Dominator. This plane had many of the attributes of the B-29 (and many of its problems also), with similar top speed and cruise speed, altitude and bomb load. The 2 things it lacked were the range (about 2/3 that of the 29, but 33% more than the Lanc), and a pressurized cabin. AND, even it was never seriously considered as the A-bomb delivery system.
@@rwhutchnlj The B-32 was pretty far behind the B-29 in development and would have needed additional changes to accept Thin Man. In terms of range, it would have been worse than a Lincoln/Lancaster IV. So I'd put the B-32 behind the Lincoln in that role, at least when Thin Man was an possibility. Realistically, the B-29 was still the best choice for the atomic attack, but a Lincoln could probably just about have done it in a pinch. It wouldn't be a first choice, though.
Great content and presentation! Finally, someone else with problems with MFPs videos and the many factual defects in them! Keep up the good work!