วีดีโอ

Mekong Delta….. Do your home work

@PhilbyFavourites the narrator pronounced it meck

Learn to spell! Or go to a gaming site.

shipped across in a disassembled state then reassembled in Britain Or flown over using multiple stops to refuel

The Me262 actually holds that record for first operational jet fighter, as the P-59 never went into actual service outside of testing and familiarization of pilots with jet aircraft. An Operational aircraft means the aircraft actually went into service, something the P-59 never did, evident by the lack of both an official introduction and retirement date for its use in the USAAF given how quickly it was passed over in favor of the Shooting Star from Lockheed by the end of the war. The Me262 in contrast flew a few months earlier than the P-59 under jet power, actually went into service in 1944, saw combat, and shot down enemy aircraft before the end of the war. In regards to the secrecy of the USA during their jet development, there was still the Soviets and Japanese to consider, the latter more so than the former by the time of the P-59. While we know now the Japanese had no hope of developing the metallurgy and having the resources needed for a proper jet fighter, the Allies didn't know that back then, and its far better to assume your enemy can rather than can't when it comes to secret projects like the P-59 or, as a later example, the A-Bomb.

Nothing I've seen regarding the early Mustangs development suggested as such, you have a source for it?

@@5MinuteGuidesToAircraft It's something I've read in a number of places, not home right now to look it up.

Wow I. . .did not realize that at first glance. I am so used to Halifax's with the Radials that I didn't know the early series had Merlin Xs with the nose turret. I didn't even think to look at the rudder and differing canopy when I saw the nose and engines.

Not their fault for having an effective naval strike aircraft and using it proficiently at night to attack a port. Japanese just had a knack for taking something that works and applying it to their own doctrine. If you want an example, look at pretty much all of their small arms, almost all are modifications or derivatives of European weapons.

I have covered the Apache briefly in the old video that is reuploaded on this channel, which delved further into the various variants and versions of the Mustangs rather than the more traditional episode structure I have now. While indeed interesting, I don't think the A-36 Apache warrants a video of its own, maybe in the future however if I decide to go over weird and obtuse P-51 variants (like those mounted with recoilless rifles at the wingtips, or the cursed pulse jet boosted Mustang_

Yes they were initially considered but the range was always an issue.

G George was a lucky ship, don’t remember the details, but it flew a lot of missions and somehow survived

I think it was little more (boy is that an understatement) that it made it through a tour (?) with majority Australian crews, so they brought it to Australia for war bond promotions. Then was put into the trophy shed.

When they were trying to figure out how to deliver the atomic weapon originally, the B-29 was barely off the drawing board and going through a whole host of teething troubles, particularly with its engines overheating. Lancaster was one of the few planes that could, before the B-29 got made reliably operational, realistically carry both the weight and size of the A-bomb to practical ranges. But, once the B-29 got made reliable, and they started project Silverplate in 1943 (modifying B-29s for A-bomb carrying), Lancaster was dropped as a theoretical delivery platform.

@@5MinuteGuidesToAircraft A bombs were armed after takeoff, not possible with Lanc because there was no access to the bomb bay from inside the aircraft. particularly difficult for Fat Man because it would have to be carried externally like the Grand Slam bomb.

@@nickdanger3802- nevertheless it was the backup. I’m sure the boffins would have found a way to modify the bomb bay

6,098 enemy shoot downs claimed by 8th AF gunners, 320 by Lanc gunners. EDIT DUE TO REPLY BEING DELETED "able to carry loads that would leave a B-17 sitting on the runway unable to move." 12,800 pounds max load for 17. 8th AF due to not having number for B17 only and does not include 15th AF in Italy, Caliban has a vid with numbers for all RAF claims by aircraft model if you want numbers for Short Stirling and Halifax to add to Lanc. Lanc losses were about 50% higher than B17 when RAF heavies flying at night for about 2 years and not going into Germany any further than the Ruhr Valley in the short nights of summer. "Within Essen there was still Krupps, virtually intact after nearly three years of attack." page 158 Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Vol II I found some interesting information in a document that can be found by Search of Operational history of Lancaster 1B R5868 This Lanc flew 136 operational sorties in two years and ten months (less than one a week) and dropped "466 tons approx" or 3.42 long tons or 7,675 pounds on average. I did not deduct missions in which bombs were jettisoned due to engine failure or the entire load was flares or mission was called off in flight. I will leave that to someone dedicated to perpetuating the myth all Lanc's carried 14,000 pounds of bombs on every mission. On pages one and two (July and August 1942) the entire load was 3,360 pounds of bombs. On page one two raids were in daylight, the next daylight raid would be in July 44, after the USAAF cleared the sky. On page two a bomb load is 2,000 pounds plus "6 x 4 flares". (USA) appears nine times with bomb type. Some of the notes are interesting. Recommendation by two pilots the aircraft be withdrawn from bombing, one friendly fire incident, "bomb doors damaged by bombs" and one midair collision with another Lanc over the target. I was amused by the listing of a USAAF general as "Passenger"

@@nickdanger3802 And your point is??? Nothing I said was incorrect yet you try to bring a something not relevant to my comment. For a Heavy!! Bomber the B-17's bomb load over long distance was pathetic compared to the Lancaster. Some Medium Bombers carried more. The B-17 carried more guns and armour than bomb load, which is he point of a BOMBER!!!! How many B17's were shot down compared to Lancaster's? Both aircraft were excellent designs for what they were intended to do yet you cannot seem to give credit where it is due without some snide inane yankee doodle comment.

​@@nickdanger3802the tiny a4 skyhawk could carry more than the standard B17 load. I love the Fort. But the lanc had it covered as far as bomb load.

⁠@@nickdanger3802I’m just going to point out that the number you’ve quoted is for all heavy bombers, not just the B-17….as per the Army Airforces strategic digest, World War 2.

@@johnfisher9692 "able to carry loads that would leave a B-17 sitting on the runway unable to move." 12,800 pounds max load for 17. 8th AF due to not having number for B17 only, Caliban has a vid with numbers for all RAF claims by aircraft model if you want numbers for Short Stirling and Halifax to add to Lanc. Lanc losses were about 50% higher than B17 when flying at night for about 2 years and not going into Germany any further than the Ruhr Valley in the short nights of summer. "Within Essen there was still Krupps, virtually intact after nearly three years of attack." page 158 Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Vol II I found some interesting information in a document that can be found by Search of Operational history of Lancaster 1B R5868 This Lanc flew 136 operational sorties in two years and ten months (less than one a week) and dropped "466 tons approx" or 3.42 long tons or 7,675 pounds on average. I did not deduct missions in which bombs were jettisoned due to engine failure or the entire load was flares or mission was called off in flight. I will leave that to someone dedicated to perpetuating the myth all Lanc's carried 14,000 pounds of bombs on every mission. On pages one and two (July and August 1942) the entire load was 3,360 pounds of bombs. On page one two raids were in daylight, the next daylight raid would be in July 44, after the USAAF cleared the sky. On page two a bomb load is 2,000 pounds plus "6 x 4 flares". (USA) appears nine times with bomb type. Some of the notes are interesting. Recommendation by two pilots the aircraft be withdrawn from bombing, one friendly fire incident, "bomb doors damaged by bombs" and one midair collision with another Lanc over the target. I was amused by the listing of a USAAF general as "Passenger" (instead of observer)

I tried, but I don't speak German :/ (tried to many years ago, didn't go well for me)

@@5MinuteGuidesToAircraft 😄

Actually yes if one looks at the B17 losses that happened before the Luftwaffe had no fuel or pilots left.

@@brealistic3542 Actually, no. From the American Air Museum: "October 1943 turned out to be the worst loss rate for 8th Air Force for the entire war. 2,145 B-17s and 303 B-24s had been dispatched on missions. 163 B-17s had been lost (loss rate 7.5991%) and 9 B-24s were lost (loss rate 2.9703%)." That was the _worst_ month.

Then self sealing fuel tanks were developed that actually protected the pilot. In the 109, the pilot sat on the tank and was surrounded from behind. 2/3 tanks are in the wing of the P40, but they are right under the pilot and the other is behind him

Note that the Finns flew an early version nearly a ton lighter than the later models flown by the USN and USMC. The Finnish climate also made things easier for a powerplant with a reputation for overheating.

Unlike the US and other Allies, neither the Japanese nor Germans practiced rotating their more experienced pilots out of combat to training new pilots in the best tactics. They just fought until they died or were medically unfit to fight any more.