NeilStirling
Airman
- 27
- Oct 6, 2006
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My biggest regret was the frequent disconnect when Greg was speaking as I was effing around with my iphone - and also not having access to my notes. I mssed several key statements that just weren't challenged.
On that topic, did Greg EVER cite facts regarding Arnold's acts of 'deceipt and treachery' to prevent LR tanks from ETO? Did he do so with Kenney when Kenney went to Ford in June 43, or when Eaker went to Bowater-Loyd in March 1943? Did he prevent Lockheed and NAA and Curtiss and Bell from subcontracting steel tanks after the famous quoted telex which paraphrased, said 'don't deliver aircraft with auxiliary tanks at gov't expense, but do what you want with your own nickel"?
Did Arnold block dispatch of four P-38FGs to 8th AF in spring 1942, and again in July 1943 when he re-routed 20th and 55th FG to 8th AF (BEFORE Schweinfurt-Regensburg).
Greg got away with misstating the particulars of the Kearby Wewak MOH mission and hung his P-47 Range/200 gal Brisbane tank by claiming the mission was from Port Moresby. It was in fact from Lae (200mi from Port Moresby), where his flight landed and refueled - then flew 300mifor the 20min fight (not for one hour), returned to Lae to refuel again. That 200gal belly tank range was ~ same as the single 108gal tank used by 56th FG 309mi over Bremen October 13th (2 days after Kearby mission).
John Bruning's Ace Race, page 240-250'ish
Nor did he quote the Kenney Report correctly by stating that P-39 tanks were sent. There was no item identified on pg 264- only that it took too much effort to modify. That would have been another reason to point at lack of common (B-7/B-10) bomb rack that already existed on the other fighters (P-38, P-39, P-40) in 1942.
Nor was he held to answer why Arnold picked Chennault, Bereton, Kenney to run 14th, 10th&9th, and 5th AF - no bomber mafioso in that group, nor was Doolittle for that matter.
The attached spreadsheet highlights longest combat engagements flown for 56FG with each of the tank combinations. Missions identified with 8th AF Victory Credits Board June 1945 but Kent Miller's Pilots and Units of 8th AF Fighter command pretty well matches the VC Board data.
It's fairly standard in verbal debates to simply make your case without extensive citations. Greg said from the beginning that he would handle references with a followup video, which I think is a great way to do it. Unfortunately, it does leave everyone waiting a bit.One of the difficult things about arguing with you, Bill, is that you generally cite references for your assertions that back up what you say with some decently-documented facts. Sometimes it is rather infuriating, unless you are actually LOOKING for facts instead of your own opinion.
Greg said a lot of things that he did not mention references for, and expected them to be taken at face value just because he said them.
It doesn't have two answers, but I suspect the correct answer might well end up meeting them half way. I think there is a lot merit to Greg's position. These types of mistakes happen in the fog of war. History is replete with them.I heard that and look forward to his response. Watching the debate made me think that both people were somehow right, but the basic question doesn't HAVE two answers.
I KNOW P-47s have decent range since it is well-documented. What I am not sure about is exactly WHY they didn't take advantage of it sooner then they did. MANY real decisions are more about politics than about what NEEDS to get done. Just look at the country and the world right now or, really, at any point in time. The things that get done around the world are much more about politics than needs, morals, or what is right or wrong.
Or maybe I just see it that way ...
I will summarize on Youtube in future, but will also do so here.One of the difficult things about arguing with you, Bill, is that you generally cite references for your assertions that back up what you say with some decently-documented facts. Sometimes it is rather infuriating, unless you are actually LOOKING for facts instead of your own opinion.
Greg said a lot of things that he did not mention references for, and expected them to be taken at face value just because he said them. Mostly, it seemed as if he got what he expected on that score since the moderator didn't object much to what either of you said. Sorry you had technical difficulties, but you generally don't get to try out the Zoom connections (or whatever system you were using) before you do the meeting. It sort of is what you get when you get it.
I thought you did well despite the technical issues. You could be heard talking, but you seemingly could not here the moderator.
Greg also posted a summary of your debate from his perspective and showed content from live chat at:
View: https://youtu.be/6pV8G42FxTI
Maybe you should summarize them from YOUR perspective, either on YouTube or at least in here. A lot of his comments in the summary were about the users who participated and not about their comments. I noted Chris Fahey (a Planes of Fame pilot from here at the museum) was one, but I was listening and didn't actually see Chris' comment(s) on the screen. I'll have to go back on and look. I KNOW he knows the fuel burn well enough to project range quite well. Among others, Chris flies our P-38 too, and was an F-16 pilot in his military days. Not too sure what other military aircraft he flew, but he has a lot of time in piston warbirds of various types. Our P-47 is P-47G (a Curtiss-built P-47B). Actually, ours has a P-47G fuselage and left wing and the right wing is from a P-47B. So, maybe it is a P-47B/G? Or Bee Gee? We are not running the turbocharger, though I hear there is one that does run it on the east coast.
Anyway, the debate was a good video to watch and pay attention to. Generally, I like the fact that you both got some time without interruption on separate channels as happens when you sit next to one another instead. That way, we aren't listening to an argument with continuous interruptions.
All the best, - Greg Pascal (not of Greg's video)
Mistakes were made. Errors in judgment were made. Lives were lost.Not too sure anything about this question happened "in the fog of war," since the decisions were made an ocean away by people who hadn't been fighting in Europe in modern (at the time) airplanes.
There really was a core cadre that believed the bomber (B-17) would get through - when budgets were tight and the dream of strategic bomardment was worthy of a place at the Joint Chief's independent of the Army. Pre-Spanish Civil War and BoB when realities set in that Pursuit aviationwas evolving faster than bombardment. Arnold changed the #4 1500mi range fighter to #1 in May 1940 Emmons Board recommendation for future development priorities.My problem with it is that unless I look up every reference, I can't tell if the references are correct and, even if I DO look up every reference, if there really was a "Bomber Mafia," and if they DID make these decisions and implement them, why would they commit anything to writing for historical perspective?
Somewhat true. The notion of bomber mafia still dictating thatfighter escort was not needed was gone. The Hope that with enough inventory as demanded by Eaker to maintain a 300 bomber per mission effort would keep losses to 4% was in effect through May 1943, but major shakeup began with Blitz Week, then Tidal Wave, then Schweinfurt-Regensburg occurred in a three week span.With regard to the P-47, perhaps it was more of WHO was going to cause the drop tanks to be made and fitted. Everyone might have been waiting for it to happen, but nobody was pushing for it. Squadron leaders might have been requesting it, but nobody up the chain was getting it DONE. Might NOT have been that way, true. But it might have been. Tough to investigate behind-the-scenes decisions 80 years later with any real degree of certainty.
Fog of war tends to be used to describe tactical situations, but it applies just fine to strategic planning too. Unknowns are everywhere in war. Even for leaders stuck across the ocean.Not too sure anything about this question happened "in the fog of war," since the decisions were made an ocean away by people who hadn't been fighting in Europe in modern (at the time) airplanes.
All things like that in writing do is make you an easy target for later prosecution. They knew things like that WAY before WWII, so if wasn't exactly as if they were operating without knowledge of reprisal for seeming misdeeds later. Intrigue and "behind the scenes maneuvering" weren't "new things" in 1940; they had been well know for thousands of years.
Same when John Boyd was espousing energy maneuvering. I'm not so sure anyone was actively opposing him as much as simply failing to adopt his theory. There IS a difference between the two.
First - the Debate was about "P-47 was prevented from bomber escort by Deceipt and Treachery in 1943"
The subtopic was that with the Brisbane 200gal tank the P-47 would have been entirely adequate and The P-51 was not only unnecessary, but it was introduced to cover up the mistakes/ill intentions of the bomber mafia.
Clickbait or not, that was the explicit title and subject for debate, as submitted to me in writing by Greg.You might be placing a little too much emphasis on something that was meant as a click bait title. I have learned to not pay much attention to what a video is titled on youtube, other than to get a general idea of the topic. Greg is no exception in this case.
You misunderstood his argument here. He argues that the P-47 and/or P-38 could have escorted earlier. He never argued that the 200 gallon tank was adequate or that the P-51 was introduced to cover up their earlier mistakes. Rather he argues that the USAAF leadership used the P-51's range as an explanation, ex post facto, to justify why they hadn't been escorting sooner. In fact, he has specifically said on a couple of occasions, including once in this debate as I recall, that he would have made the transition to the P-51 also, due to it's lower cost, easier pilot training, and lower resource usage. The examples of the 200 gallon tank was mostly meant to illustrate what might have been in 1943 if leadership hadn't been dragging their feet on the issue.