Good thing I am working from home. I can watch this.
Greg of Auto and Airplanes has asked for a Debate (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ObtuseOcelot
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Which pages? I looked for them, and do not see any links.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I just checked Greg's planes trains and automobiles channel for any info. Nada.
Just up on Greg's channel (in "community"): now on at 12:30.
drgondog
Major
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 858
- Feb 16, 2013
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
I doubt it is worth inflicting farcebook on myself for this so I will just have to miss out.
Low Battery
Airman
- 20
- Sep 11, 2014
I think Bill won that pretty obviously. Greg just keep blabbing nonsensical counter factual and insinuating without and even contrary to the evidence that the leadership was stuffing the P-47.
I still haven't seen any evidence that this 200 gallon tank he keeps claiming exists. He's now talking about some pieced together tank. Where is the document saying this tank even worked suitably for aaf service or was pressurized? Also if he thinks that the losenge tank in the manual that hardly looks like something that would work for escort and jettisoning. It's like most of the length of the fuselage. I'm not a engineer but I would wonder if a tank like that could come off safely.
I still haven't seen any evidence that this 200 gallon tank he keeps claiming exists. He's now talking about some pieced together tank. Where is the document saying this tank even worked suitably for aaf service or was pressurized? Also if he thinks that the losenge tank in the manual that hardly looks like something that would work for escort and jettisoning. It's like most of the length of the fuselage. I'm not a engineer but I would wonder if a tank like that could come off safely.
Last edited:
fubar57
General
Thank you for that. On night shift so I missed it. I need highlights from anyone please
Greg ventured into the air pressure used by modern civilian airliners as proof you dont need pressure to draw fuel. Bill pointed out that modern airliners dont use drop tanks. It was high brow stuff at times.
Low Battery
Airman
- 20
- Sep 11, 2014
I will summarize this for people who asked for it above:
Basically Greg's argument repeatedly states nonsense over and over and he acts like he is stating grounded facts.
-His drop tank claims.
He constantly repeats without evidence that there were suitable 200 gallon tanks available. He even has the absurd view now that the ferry tanks could in fact operate above 20k. He seems to also be under the impression that there were magical pump available that could solve any problem of lack of pressure. He has yet to have supplied good documentation for the 200 gallon fantasy metal tank he thinks existed and also assumes was completely suitable for combat. There is no evidence that this tank existed in any serious way or that it was pressurize or otherwise a sound design even.
-He makes claims about the Pacific.
He is under that absurd notion that the Japanese air threat was equal to the German one. This is pure buffoonery. Japanese fighters were slow as balls by comparison and lacked altitude performance especially.
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
Gregs argument regarding the so called "bomber mafia" basically boils down to PRESUMING that every error was due to irrational dedication to the self escorting bomber. Even on facts that no one is disuputing, Greg just presumes that this answers the why of those facts. He reads motive into everything. One particularly stupid bit is that he points out that the P-38 was not being used. That was because it will pulled for operation torch. AT BEST, you can argue this was maybe the wrong use of those planes (I dont agree that is that case but I digress). What you cannot do is therefore presume that P-38s were sent away because the bomber generals were too stupid to know escorts were needed. Not only is this assumption just idiotic, its also downright counterfactual to the historical record and what we know the leadership wanted. Honestly I could go on forever about this, but there are too many ways in which Greg makes assumptions like this that do not make sense. Another one is that he just tacitly ignores the fact that in the early 40s the United States went from basically no air force to building a huge one from scratch, and strat bombing was not the only thing it had to do. Furthermore, it was competing with the many other material and industrial resource limitations. But Greg just thinks that every single example of a failing is due to self sabotage.
Basically Greg's argument repeatedly states nonsense over and over and he acts like he is stating grounded facts.
-His drop tank claims.
He constantly repeats without evidence that there were suitable 200 gallon tanks available. He even has the absurd view now that the ferry tanks could in fact operate above 20k. He seems to also be under the impression that there were magical pump available that could solve any problem of lack of pressure. He has yet to have supplied good documentation for the 200 gallon fantasy metal tank he thinks existed and also assumes was completely suitable for combat. There is no evidence that this tank existed in any serious way or that it was pressurize or otherwise a sound design even.
-He makes claims about the Pacific.
He is under that absurd notion that the Japanese air threat was equal to the German one. This is pure buffoonery. Japanese fighters were slow as balls by comparison and lacked altitude performance especially.
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
Gregs argument regarding the so called "bomber mafia" basically boils down to PRESUMING that every error was due to irrational dedication to the self escorting bomber. Even on facts that no one is disuputing, Greg just presumes that this answers the why of those facts. He reads motive into everything. One particularly stupid bit is that he points out that the P-38 was not being used. That was because it will pulled for operation torch. AT BEST, you can argue this was maybe the wrong use of those planes (I dont agree that is that case but I digress). What you cannot do is therefore presume that P-38s were sent away because the bomber generals were too stupid to know escorts were needed. Not only is this assumption just idiotic, its also downright counterfactual to the historical record and what we know the leadership wanted. Honestly I could go on forever about this, but there are too many ways in which Greg makes assumptions like this that do not make sense. Another one is that he just tacitly ignores the fact that in the early 40s the United States went from basically no air force to building a huge one from scratch, and strat bombing was not the only thing it had to do. Furthermore, it was competing with the many other material and industrial resource limitations. But Greg just thinks that every single example of a failing is due to self sabotage.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I watched it all. Bill did nicely but there were technical issues at Drgondog's end. I'm going with Drgondog for the win. Greg's audience would disagree.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Low Battery
Airman
- 20
- Sep 11, 2014
It's on youtube
I agree. I watched it as well, and I did not feel that Greg ever really countered with much.
drgondog
Major
I was beyond frustrated with Wave.com vs Zoom. It was really interesting doing the debate on my iPhone and zero access to my notes.
I want to thank Geoffrey Sinclair for research contributions and Calum Douglas as well.
I want to thank Geoffrey Sinclair for research contributions and Calum Douglas as well.
Low Battery
Airman
- 20
- Sep 11, 2014
So another thing I don't get about Greg's position in the debate is his bringing up of the 350 mile missions over New Guinea.
Um. So? The classic range chart showing fighter ranges shows p47 ranges in August 43 over ETO as 375 miles. That is further than his Pacific missions.
I don't understand what talking about medium altitude missions going less distance than drop tank equipped thunderbolts in the ETO is supposed to prove. All this shows is that the guys in the Pacific were more or less doing the same thing?
Um. So? The classic range chart showing fighter ranges shows p47 ranges in August 43 over ETO as 375 miles. That is further than his Pacific missions.
I don't understand what talking about medium altitude missions going less distance than drop tank equipped thunderbolts in the ETO is supposed to prove. All this shows is that the guys in the Pacific were more or less doing the same thing?
Attachments
The likely initial source for Greg's P47 range/bomber mafia video.
He mentions the ChicagoBoyz website in that video.
Why were P-38 fighters not used more as heavy bomber escorts in Europe early in WW2, given their 2,200 mile range and 40,000 feet ceiling?
He mentions the ChicagoBoyz website in that video.
Why were P-38 fighters not used more as heavy bomber escorts in Europe early in WW2, given their 2,200 mile range and 40,000 feet ceiling?
Where were your notes?
I can assure you they vehemently disagree. Few of them know his initial spark for the P-47 video came from Trent Telenko of the ChicagoBoyz. A fun site if you're into right wing conspiracy theories.
