Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Back when I was recovering from my wreck, the boss had me do a Monday video conference from home on the week's shop workload (which I did not want to do).I have to say that I don't trust anyone using either "greetings" or "salutations" as an opening. Greg, of course, uses the former.
Hey everyone, how's it going?
[...]
Bonuspoint to anyone who recognizes the rather meandering channel the greeting is from. It's not meant as a recommendation...
There were mornings when I wished to have an AI voice. And face.There are channels in which I wish the creator used an AI voice -- it would be better than his leaden diction.
I think you have a very lovable face. Wait, is that not your real face?!There were mornings when I wished to have an AI voice. And face.
I may have mentioned in another thread, way back, about an incident with Geography exams and a T-33. It seems that our Geography exams were in a luggage pod attached to the belly of the T-33 our instructor flew home for the weekend. Monday morning, we were told that all of us had passed our exams as they were lost somewhere west of the Rockies.As other have said, they were not dropped on peacetime missions except in emergencies.
I recall a friend saying in our home town said he observed a USAF T-33A dropping its tip tanks over a populated area.
I recall reading in a USAF safety magazine about a T-33A taking off from Mountain Home AFB, ID, just before a storm front hit. They were rolling down the runway when the gust front overtook them from behind, instantly causing a huge drop in airspeed. The only way to get off the ground before the runway ran out was to punch off the tip tanks.
And I recall a former military pilot admitting that he left two drop tanks in a golf course.
And that is all the cases I have ever heard about, despite 25 years on active duty in the USAF and a lifelong study of aviation.
Now, a friend of mine who was in a German POW camp in WW2 said that Allied pilots would on occasion drop their tanks into the POW compound. They probably were Polish pilots and were just trying to say hello, buck, up, we're here, etc. but of course everyone's reaction was to run like hell and duck for cover. He said there occasionally was enough fuel left in the tanks to fill a cigarette lighter and that the tank he saw was made out of paper.
Just to be clear--I watched the entire video and posted numerous comments before posting the video here. I had also discussed this topic with Greg and he apparently decided to ignore an extensive historical study that I pointed him to. He appears to obliquely dismiss it in the video.Hear me out.
I'd suggest that we don't do some mad scramble the moment Greg posts a video, even if the title contains the word like 'Bomber mafia' and similar. I know that finding mistakes in his videos is cool here, but still.
This may be true, but it is also irrelevant.Anyone got a month by month (or even week by week) comparison of USAAF claims in North Africa and Western Europe?
I wonder at what point the rate of ETO claims takes over that of MTO claims.
Just to be clear--I watched the entire video and posted numerous comments before posting the video here. I had also discussed this topic with Greg and he apparently decided to ignore an extensive historical study that I pointed him to. He appears to obliquely dismiss it in the video.
Greg is absolutely right that there was a bomber mafia, and that it held unrealistic views. However, he ignores the views of the fighter advocates in the years leading up to the Second World War, leading him deep into nonsensical error. When the fighter guys don't think that it's possible to build an effective long-range escort, it's hard to argue against unescorted bombers.
Greg trips on the semantics of the word "bomber" smashes his head on the wall and falls out of the window into a pile of cow slurry. The "BOMBER MAFIA" were advocates of a strategic and tactical bomber force to project US power in times of war. It is impossible for anyone to argue that they werent correct, bearing in mind how the war in the far east ended and what happened after. To this day the USA has a massive bomb force, they just dont use aircraft anymore. It is a matter of historical fact that the USA was attacked at Pearl Harbor in December 1941, in April 1942 the Doolittle raid on Tokyo used BOMBERS taking off from a carrier at some risk simply to make a symbolic hit on Japans capital. If the USA had a fleet of B-29s in 1942, that is what would have been used. The BOMBER MAFIA were not in any way averse or opposed to using fighters, the issue was getting fighters with the rang to do it. Experiments with in flight refuelling and bombers actually carrying fighters were tried to that end. Gregs Bomber Mafia nonsense is just money making tripe, complete BS and he knows it, but he has years of experience keeping people clicking.Just to be clear--I watched the entire video and posted numerous comments before posting the video here. I had also discussed this topic with Greg and he apparently decided to ignore an extensive historical study that I pointed him to. He appears to obliquely dismiss it in the video.
Greg is absolutely right that there was a bomber mafia, and that it held unrealistic views. However, he ignores the views of the fighter advocates in the years leading up to the Second World War, leading him deep into nonsensical error. When the fighter guys don't think that it's possible to build an effective long-range escort, it's hard to argue against unescorted bombers.
There was a "battleship Mafia", it just didn't go to the extremes that that Greg claims the Bomber Mafia didI'm going to create a phrase:
"Battleship Mafia" because in the days leading up to WWII, the mindset was Battleships would decide naval engagements.
So anything other than Battleships were suppressed by the Battleship Mafia.
| Aircraft | Mohawk | Mohawk | Tomahawk | Tomahawk | Gauntlet | Gladiator | Hurricane I | Hurricane I | Spitfire I | Spitfire I | Spitfire I |
| Clean Take off Weight lb | 7,000 | 7,000 | 7,602 | 7,602 | 4,028 | 4,912 | 6,661 | 6,661 | 6,255 | 6,255 | 6352.5 |
| Cruise Speed (m.p.h) | 185 | 248 | 185 | 278 | 118 | 142 | 170 - 180 | 281 | 180 - 190 | 305 | 180 - 190 |
| Fuel weight pounds/gallon | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.7 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 |
| Internal fuel gallons | 132 | 132 | 132 | 132 | 79 | 83 | 97 | 97 | 84 | 84 | 96 |
| clean range with 15 mins allowance | 800 | 592 | 800 | 615 | 511 | 488 | 580 | 447 | 575 | 415 | 681 |
| allowance gallons | 29 | 29 | 25 | 25 | 12.60 | 17.99 | 19.40 | 19.40 | 19.47 | 19.47 | 19.53 |
| mpg | 7.77 | 5.75 | 7.48 | 5.75 | 9.43 | 8.04 | 7.73 | 5.76 | 8.91 | 6.43 | 8.91 |
| fuel for combat+reserve gals | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 27 | 34 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 |
| radius miles | 714.56 | 529.00 | 687.85 | 528.79 | 490.27 | 394.17 | 440.72 | 328.32 | 392.05 | 282.92 | 499.19 |
| external fuel gals | 133.10 | 133.10 | 128.70 | 128.70 | 71.06 | 73.68 | 84.04 | 84.04 | 69.81 | 69.81 | 83.09 |
| external fuel wt lb | 958.32 | 958.32 | 926.64 | 926.64 | 547.19 | 552.63 | 630.30 | 630.30 | 523.60 | 523.60 | 623.16 |
| total fuel gals | 265.10 | 265.10 | 260.70 | 260.70 | 150.06 | 156.68 | 181.04 | 181.04 | 153.81 | 153.81 | 179.09 |
| Take off weight | 7958.32 | 7958.32 | 8528.64 | 8528.64 | 4575.19 | 5464.63 | 7291.30 | 7291.30 | 6778.60 | 6778.60 | 6975.66 |
| %extra weight of external fuel | 13.69 | 13.69 | 12.19 | 12.19 | 13.58 | 11.25 | 9.46 | 9.46 | 8.37 | 8.37 | 9.81 |
The A6M in 1940? The P-51 in 1941 once it had drop tanks? Both medium altitude types. The P-51B with 180 gallons internal could only use 135 gallons external, but had a radius of 500 miles. Plenty of He111 performance figures to choose from, early H 1,200 miles with full bomb load.The state of the art in Aircraft/engine design did not allow for escort fighters in 1938-39-40. Germans were not stupid when they designed the Bf 110. And they were only trying to escort He 111s.
The unspoken condition, escort for USAAF B-17 and B-24 types at high altitude.Now when did the crossover point come????? When did the combination of aerodynamics, structure and powerplant allow for a decent escort fighter of even 400-500 radius occur?
So I went and watched it. He has gotten rather polemic, I have to admit. Still, no progress is made where everybody agrees on everything.Ok, it's actually a while since last I clicked on a Greg.
This data card for a Hurricane I states the same data but with a climb to 20K ft:According to Roger Freeman, B-17B
3,600 miles at 176 mph at 10,000 feet with 2,496 gallons of fuel, no bombs, weight 45,650 pounds
2,400 miles at 230 mph at 25,000 feet with 1,700 gallons of fuel, 4,000 pounds of bombs, weight 44,500 pounds
1,300 miles at 230 mph at 25,000 feet with 850 gallons of fuel, 2,400 pounds of bombs, weight 37,000 pounds
Non Tokyo Tank B-17F 1,300 miles at 200 mph at 10,000 feet with 1,730 gallons of fuel, 6,000 pounds of bombs, weight 56,500 pounds
Tokyo Tank B-17F 2,200 miles at 200 mph at 10,000 feet with 2,810 gallons of fuel, 6,000 pounds of bombs, weight 65,500 pounds
Assuming the 1/3 rule, Non Tokyo B-17 radius above would be around 450 miles, with 8th Air Force tactics it was 320 miles, at 225/240 mph at 25,000 feet, 6,000 pounds of bombs. 1,760 gallons of fuel, 380 gallons used in climb, all up 1,075 gallons used to target, 115 gallons remaining on return.
Aerodynamics matters, Hurricane I economic cruise 7.73 mpg, Spitfire I 8.91 mpg, 15% more efficient
Gauntlet 15 minutes allowance = 12.4 gallons take off and climb to 15,000 feet
Gladiator II 15 minutes allowance = 18 gallons take off and climb to 15,000 feet
Hurricane I 15 minutes allowance = 19.4 gallons take off and climb to 15,000 feet
Spitfire I 15 minutes allowance = 20 gallons take off and climb to 15,000 feet
Spitfire VIII actual 23 gallons take off and climb to 20,000 feet, 54 gallons for combat and reserves.
The allowances seem to over estimate the Spitfire I requirements at least.
100 octane weight 7.2 pounds per gallon, allowance is fuel used in 15 minutes maximum power at sea level for warming up and climbing to operational height. Cruise height 15,000 feet, take off weight excludes external fuel, radius is for the aircraft released at 15,000 feet with running engine and full fuel tanks. Assumptions: external tanks are weightless and cost 10% of their fuel due to drag but do not drop speed and carry the fuel needed for the allowance and fly to radius distance. The final Spitfire column uses the mark VIII forward fuselage fuel capacity, 96 gallons to show what a seemingly small change in internal fuel does, radius at 305mph would be around 360 miles. The Spitfire Vb clean take off weight was 6,460 pounds, the Hurricane IIc 7,544 but with more power available. The US types have a protection problem.
Aircraft Mohawk Mohawk Tomahawk Tomahawk Gauntlet Gladiator Hurricane I Hurricane I Spitfire I Spitfire I Spitfire I Clean Take off Weight lb Cruise Speed (m.p.h) 170 - 180 180 - 190 180 - 190 Fuel weight pounds/gallon Internal fuel gallons clean range with 15 mins allowance allowance gallons mpg fuel for combat+reserve gals radius miles external fuel gals external fuel wt lb total fuel gals Take off weight %extra weight of external fuel
Using these simplistic calculations the amount of fuel carried does not change with cruise speed, the radius drops. The extra weight carried could be compensated to an extent by constant speed propellers and proper runways (see the B-24 take off charts), going to 100 octane would give more energy in the fuel for a few pounds less weight, probably around what the external tank and fittings would weigh.
The USAAF calculated the combat radius figures on internal fuel as follows, P-38J 300 gallons 125 miles, 410 gallons 275 miles, P-47D 305 gallons 150 miles, 370 gallons 250 miles, P-51B 180 gallons 175 miles, 265 gallons 400 miles. Conditions, Escort fighter accompanying B-17 at 185 mph IAS, Full power (max continuous) climbing to 25,000 feet, Cruise at 210 mph IAS, 300 mph TAS, Tanks dropped when empty or at radius, 15 minutes combat at military power, 5 minutes combat at war emergency power, Return to base at required cruising speed, accompanying bombers, 30 minutes fuel reserve.
The P-38 with 300 gallons internal could only use 175 gallons of external fuel, unless it wanted to loiter within 350 miles from base or run out of fuel going home.
The A6M in 1940? The P-51 in 1941 once it had drop tanks? Both medium altitude types. The P-51B with 180 gallons internal could only use 135 gallons external, but had a radius of 500 miles. Plenty of He111 performance figures to choose from, early H 1,200 miles with full bomb load.
The unspoken condition, escort for USAAF B-17 and B-24 types at high altitude.
Decent fighter is at least partially defined by the opposition quality, the P-36 and P-40 as escorts would have had problems with Bf109E in 1939/40 then again like the Spitfire V in 1943, if there were enough bombers the interceptors would often try and avoid engaging escorts, making the escorts competitive. Part of the 8th Air Force success was numbers, not just quality.
US Archives Record Group 342 Entry P26 Box 2237. Decimal hours 0.333 = 20 minutes. P-38F 290 gallons internal, 300 gallons external fuel,
1. Warm up taxi, take off to 100 feet 12 gallons main tanks,
2. 100 to 15,000 feet 34 gallons, 0.16 hours, belly tank
3. cruise 2,280 RPM full throttle, 250 mph, 110 gallons per hour, 2.0 hours, 220 gallons, 500 air miles flown, belly tank,
4. Drop belly tank, with 46 gallons still in it (or use the fuel but stay within 500 miles of base)
5. combat full military power for 10 minutes, 42 gallons,
6. return cruise as per outgoing but at 280 mph, 196 gallons, 1.8 hours, 500 miles,
7. Reserve 40 gallons 0.333 hours.
AFHRA Reel A2069 page 1574, P-51B with 180 internal, 150 external gallons, combat radius as fighter 350-500 miles, as escort 250-350 miles, with 265 internal and 216 external radius as fighter 700-850 miles, as escort 500-600 miles. P-38J 290 internal 300 external radius as fighter 300-450 miles, as escort 200-330 miles, P-38J with 410 internal and 300 external radius as fighter 550-700 miles, as escort 375 to 475 miles.
The P-51B with 265 gallons internal and 150 external could go out to 750 miles radius, compared to the B-17G of 2,000 miles range at 182 mph at 10,000 feet with 6,000 pounds of bombs. It also helped fighters were no longer sticking with a given bomber formation thereby forgoing range by having to weave. The 1943 problem solved, now what about escorts for the new 1944 model, the B-29?
Over and above the engineering that favoured multi engine aircraft having longer ranges comes bombers had 2 range deductions, the fuel needed to take off and climb to height and the reserves, fighters had a third, combat allowance which was expensive, even at fast cruise speeds it was worth a couple of hundred miles of range.
The bigger the aircraft the general rule the longer it takes to develop and then build in numbers. As fighters are smaller it gives them a chance to pass. In order to have the bomber force it did the USAAF had to use 1,200 HP class engines in the B-17 and B-24, while the fighters could fit more powerful engines and then carry more fuel. Add the P-51 was a real advance in aerodynamics and construction, including providing more internal room for fuel tanks. The inevitable downside is changes tend to delay mass production, made worse because the B-17 and B-24 programs had head starts.
The USAAF had P-38 in early 1943 that could escort 8th Air Force B-17 all the way to target, at least until Tokyo tank versions became numerous and in mid 1943 the P-51B which could go almost everywhere the 8th Air Force then wanted to go, it took until early 1944 before the 8th Air Force had the two fighters in numbers. Meantime in the Mediterranean from late 1942 the standard US heavy bomber mission stayed within escort range, with some obvious exceptions, like Ploesti, or could get away without (many) escorts due to a lack of axis fighters in the target area or en route.
Don't forget the XB-41So I went and watched it. He has gotten rather polemic, I have to admit. Still, no progress is made where everybody agrees on everything.
I have one question though. If they were 100% against escorted bombers, why then did they spend money like drunken sailors on YB 40's?
That misrepresented the views of the bomber advocates. They believed that strategic bombing would be decisive and argued again and again that tactical bombing was an ineffective diversion of resources. Their public writings and archival material have made this crystal clear.Greg trips on the semantics of the word "bomber" smashes his head on the wall and falls out of the window into a pile of cow slurry. The "BOMBER MAFIA" were advocates of a strategic and tactical bomber force to project US power in times of war.
Their theories failed utterly. The USAF bomber advocates were certain that high-altitude precision daylight bombing could destroy the vital centers of the enemy economy, crippling their war machine with minimum force and even vastly lower loss of life than the trench warfare of WWI.It is impossible for anyone to argue that they werent correct, bearing in mind how the war in the far east ended and what happened after.
Having been to the peace park at Hiroshima, you are delusional. The whole theory is seen in retrospect. The Bomber Mafia were followed by the target mafia. People who thought you could end the war with a single raid. But that neds you to know in advance who your enemy will be, what is industry will be and where and come up with a fantasy like removing all ball bearings from Germany with one raid. They were wrong, but in terms of being wrong they were far less wrong than any opponent. Without the combined bomber offensive in Europe the war would have run much differently, and the idea that some obsession with drop tanks had anything to do with anything is for the birds or the mentally ill, or just the plain greedy.That misrepresented the views of the bomber advocates. They believed that strategic bombing would be decisive and argued again and again that tactical bombing was an ineffective diversion of resources. Their public writings and archival material have made this crystal clear.
Their theories failed utterly. The USAF bomber advocates were certain that high-altitude precision daylight bombing could destroy the vital centers of the enemy economy, crippling their war machine with minimum force and even vastly lower loss of life than the trench warfare of WWI.
They ended up engaging in indiscriminate city busting with incendiary, killing vast numbers of civilians. The atomic bombs were the apotheosis of counter-value attacks and should have been the nail in the coffin of the "vital centers" doctrine.
Delivering violence via aircraft is not the vision of the bomber advocates--they had far more precise and detailed theories.