I wish I had a copy of my great uncle's gun camera footage. He flew the P-38 before transitioning to the P-51 and had some incredible footage of a lot of strafing. There must be thousands of hours of gun camera footage out in the world that are essentially lost media because they've never been archived and digitized
I was once hired to print some old negatives of sailing yachts. Terrific images.... but the lens that photographer used had problems, the negs were of low contrast and the overall sharpness was poor. The clips in this video probably represent the generally low quality of most gun footage. Be interesting to know more about why some WWII gun camera footage is so good while so much isn't. One issue might be reusing developing chemicals. Even the fuzzy images here are very useful for after action and gunnery training, but few of these clips would've made it into a war movie back in the day. With AI these could provide the 'foundation' for some terrific recreations. I remember a couple of things from May 25th, 1977. Star Wars of course, but also immediately recognizing some specific gun camera clips I'd seen numerous times before, as the basis of the space fighters battling in space.
I know Hollywood lost a lot of the early films due to the film material combined with the lack of proper storage knowledge. Films like Wizard of Oz and its era got stored in salt mines or very controlled vaults. On the aircraft films poor vs good quality, this is an educated guess but the good stuff was meant for propaganda films back home. Good example is the Tarawa film which was done with good color film with the idea it would shown in theaters. WW2 trivia:: the US military shot a ton of color early in the war. But theater owners complained about it, saying the customers would start demanding they show color films instead of B/W. Because of that much of the color was converted to B/W. Some color did survive as evidenced in the WW2 In Color series on History Ch.
I did most certainly find this video informative and worthy of my time. I also think you're onto something, particularly with the gun camera clips and your comments on them.
Thank you for taking the time to go through all of the footage you make this video! This channel is underrated! History that deserves to be remembered!
The guy at 12:01 wasn't strafing a horse he was strafing the cart it was pulling. At one point they were shooting up anything moving on the roads. It's not the only gun camera footage I have seen shooting up a horse and cart.
@@dzhang4459 Exactly my point as to why they shot it up. When Doolittle let the fighters free to go to the deck they hit anything that moved. I saw a piece of film even more graphic than this one where the cart was shattered and you can see the horse bolt and run as the fighter flew over.
I saw one of those veteran story videos from a P47 pilot, and I learned how the losses suffered got worse as they did more ground attacks into Germany, than when they were fighting the Germans in the air.
With all those AAA rounds going up, they do come back down. Getting hit by a falling 20mm round has got to be potentially lethal for exposed ground personnel.
@@JC_WT self destructing 20mm shells were apparently 'a thing'--Heck, I remember memoirs talking about the 'little white shellbursts' from 20mm and of course, even the 633 Squadron movie had used pyrotechnics to recreate those effects (pretty amazing for a 1964 movie).
Excellent, informative video. Seeing the number of strikes that the aircraft often take without burning, really makes me question whether 20mm would have been a more effective armament for USAAF aircraft pressed into the ground attack role. I know that this is a complex topic that is often discussed, but this footage brought it once again to mind. I cant imagine pressing home an attack under AAA, getting good hits on target, and the enemy aircraft still being repairable.
Yet another well-presented episode on this very interesting channel, chock full of fascinating details and new facts about the subject at hand (new to me, that is). Well done & thank you!
I worked with a guy that was a B-17 Pilot with the 8th Air Force and he brought in a stack of photographs of different bombing missions . Some showed enemy Fighters close by . I asked him how he took them while he was flying and he said the Dept of Defense put cameras on the planes and since they were too busy to take their own photos they just stole the rolls that were taken from the cameras.
You said at around 10:19 go around for another pass, I was under the impression that second passes were rarely made due to the increased chance of being shot down
At 4:00 it is shown what the Jagdwaffe largely did not use in the Bodenplatte operation and for which reason it partially suffered such large losses, namely the lack of upper fighter cover.
A good counterpart for this is "The Luftwaffe Fighter Force: The View from the Cockpit". Though it lists Adolf Galland as the author, it actually a summary of post-war interrogations/interviews with Galland and a few other Luftwaffe pilots about the workings of that service. The blurb gives the impression that it's a collection of anecdotes from pilots and aircrew, but it's done more like this with descriptions of everything from how command structures were set up and how mission prep and briefings were carried out. A section on roles goes into the various forms of ground attack and close air support and shows that the Luftwaffe reached many of the same conclusions about how to go about attacking heavily defended targets like airfields One interesting thing was how different the same operations could be on the Western and Eastern fronts until late in the war when the equipment and tactics of the Red Air Force had reached greater parity with the RAF & USAAF. Several times they touch on the importance of the P-51's role in making attacks on the bomber formations drastically more dangerous and less effective. They noted that when Doolittle cut the escorts free from the close escort role and let them range out ahead to seek out the German formations, it was a major blow both in terms of the successes against the bombers and losses among Luftwaffe crews. That helps explain the high number of Mustangs in the table of losses shown in this video. Although far less suited than the P-47, there were hundreds of them that were free during the return leg of missions to seek out targets of opportunity, so high losses were inevitable.
I think it may be related to the arc of the bullets being over the sight at the ranges they are shooting at, so you have to aim under the target to get the bullets on target? that or to account for closure to the target. confusing either way.
Excellent question and I think the explanations below are correct. The gunsight is harmonized with the guns for the optimal range. As you get closer than that you have to lower the muzzles to shorten the range accordingly. The explanation in the video could have been clearer to those of us who need a little thinking to work it out. :-) I ❤️ this channel!
@@genreynolds6685 I've been thinking that if 1200 ft is the optimal range, then the guns would be sighted in for that range. Then for the initial bursts taken at a range longer than that, the pilot would have to hold the sight over the target, and as he got closer he would have to lower the nose so the sights were on target at 1200 ft, and then maybe be sighting under as he got even closer. But I am speculating and that's not exactly what the document said. Maybe the sights could be adjusted for range depending on how close.
You likely wouldn’t live long enough to have a nightmare. Of course some did, if they didn’t happen to be the target. But much of the nightmare scenario was living through your last moments before you died.
I assume the added danger of strafing an airdrome could feature into the difference in gunnery discipline we see compared with your train attack video. For example, one clip of an academically-less-than-perfect attack looked like a fighter taxiing, which could increase the hurry-up-and-adjust-and-you-better-darn-well-get-it rush, which increases spray throughout the aim adjustment. Dangerous, dangerous work...
Once again, excellent use of primary source material in your presentation! Could you please research and present the accomplishments of the USAAF 9th AF in the ETO as well? Thanks!
[~2:26] I wish we could get a comparative analysis of overall *sortie* rates, between the P-38, the P-47, and the P-51, during the period covered by this loss-rate chart. Without knowing how many total missions each of these different types are involved in, their "relative" loss numbers are rendered almost meaningless as a point of comparison. Same thing I was thinking at the previous showing of this chart on the train-strafing video. I get that the USAAF in the end favored the P-47 for ground strafing (of whatever specific type of target) due to its firepower and ruggedness. (Similar story with the USN/USMC keeping the Corsair on the carriers well into the Korean war! A whole 'nother discussion...) BUT... I still have a sneaking suspicion, that the relative qualities of the P-38 against ground targets, were/are being given short shrift? Maybe? Because there were far fewer of the P-38s in E.T.O. by this point? I guess? HOW MANY ? Is what I would like to know. At the very least, I would think P-38s' central gun-grouping, should make it more effective for ground-strafing starting at much longer ranges than the "ideal" 400 yards cited in the train-busting vid? The particular point about no "convergence" issue with the Lightning, was not fully/directly addressed in the limited discussion about "optimal firing range". (You did make the generic statement about P-38 "Accuracy"... But didn't specify whether that modifies the particular 400-yd range guidance.) If the wing-mount guns of a P-40/-47/-51 are focused/tuned/harmonized (what is the right term for this?) to cross at 400 yards, then that will obviously be the most effective range. But while bullet drop (re. target-aiming) and velocity loss (re. penetration) become obviously detrimental at longer ranges, still the P-38 should have at least a marginally better factor of "versatility" on the range issue, simply due to the center-line gun configuration. I highly enjoy all of your vids generally. So I hope my quibbling about some specific details therein, does not imply any undue broader criticism of either your vast research work, or your resulting presentations. Both aspects of your efforts are much admired and appreciated. [Edited for a minor typo]
@@erickent3557 Oof. That would be exactly (or, well, at least PART of) what I was asking for. I must have missed it? I'll re-look, later this afternoon when I get some time. Thanks. THAT SAID : It still strikes me as more than a little silly in the first place, that this original USAAF document showing losses, doesn't at least have totals of each type in service for the same period in question, as simply another column on the same page. Why anybody ever thought merely listing type losses without corresponding sortie rates was usefully illustrative of anything for any purpose, other than parity replacement needs, is beyond me.
Rommel talked about " taxi ranks" of American aircraft circling and looking for targets. He knew that they needed strong defences because movement of tanks would become highly problematic.
When it seems they are just randomly shooting, they are probably at the brink of sensory overload. Worried about getting shot down, coping with G-Forces, trying to keep the aircraft where they want it to go, and not flying into the ground, while trying to get a good sight picture on something as they are moving at around 400 mph. Most likely a tad difficult to do all that at once....
This was Out”fricken”standing! I’ve always loved the history of World War II, especially European theater! Being a pilot, like most pilots, the P51 and the P38 are two favorite aircraft! Along with the Corsair! I was fortunate enough at the airport. I went to during aviation class in high school, there was a P51 & a Corsair! Getting my PPL in 10th grade, Occasionally, going to fly at the airport, I started out at. I listed in the military, after training Getting our orders to deploy. The gentleman, who know the sisters that taught us, knew “at the time” in 2006 that deployment to Iraq wasent in our favor. After literally a week of going over everything, I was so very fricking lucky to fly “for the first time” a P51 mustang! The power is amazing, it’s something you have to experience! Luckily, we live in a time where you can actually pay to fly trainer aircraft and dogfight! Using paint rounds & basically laser tag dogfighting! If you’re a pilot, I suggest you to go for it, especially if you love history and or just interested in checking out your skills it’s fun as hell by the way!
I remember hearing Chuck Yeager talking about strafing horse drawn wagons, wonder if that was him in the film clip. It might be possible to match his combat log to the timestamp on the film clip you showed. good research and video, it’s a topic I’ve always wondered about. Your video provides more interesting material on the subject.
IIRC that clip you are recalling about Mr. Yeager was a horse-drawn wagon being attacked on a road, not this one at an airfield. The attack is at such close range you can see that the wagon was the target, not the horse which bolts and runs as the wagon disintegrates behind it...very possibly injured of course. I can’t see Chuck Yeager gratuitously shooting a horse somehow. People he didn’t like, sure, but not horses. Funny how that clip of the horse wagon has stuck in my mind from the early days of TH-cam. Even if uninjured the horse was clearly terrified and I feel bad seeing an animal suffer even psychologically, even though it was blameless on the part of the fighter pilot.
Great video. Any idea of the cost effectiveness of straffing vs aerial combat? i.e. the kill:loss ratio. I imagine it was more risky, but necessary to maintain aerial superiority. It also risks your pilots but not theirs which could attrition your experienced pilots, similar with the home field advantage of the Battle of Britain.
I guess this would be an early precision weapon attack. And hits from a .50API likely would do far more damage than fragments from a bomb, able to pierce through engine blocks and gearboxes so you can't repair it with new components and also almost guarantee a fire from any fuel leak.
We just had film developed from the pacific campaign and printed over into color. Film was found in an old envelope from my grandfather. Has photos of Japan after the war as well.
Seems like some tall telegraph poles and wire would be a good deterrent or help funnel straffers into known avenues of approach along the axis of the runways. Probably something I'm missing because it would have been done if it was useful most likely.
Both sides did that in the form of barrage balloons. Large balloons anchored to the ground with thick cables. But on an airstrip they would be as dangerous to your own aircraft
It was actually a German base trying a new method of confusing Allied fighters. It was to make them think they'd flown WAY off course and demoralize them.
Has anyone seen documentation of the P-47 ammo loadout for ground attack vs escort missions? More than doubling the weight of the design ammunition load would have to reduce aircraft performance a bit below book values. Was ammunition always overloaded, or was it only for certain missions? From AN 01-65BC-1A: "Guns -- Eight .50 calibre guns, four in each wing are provided. Only six guns with ammunition are included in the design useful load." [...] "The maximum load is 425 rounds each. Desired loading with six guns is 267 rounds each, and with eight guns, 200 rounds each." [...]
Did many of these pilots have specific training for these very low level ground attacks? I know at the time there were some very basic analogue simulators or instruments, were any of these used? What about practice airfields with simple wooden targets? I am sure that many pilots would have benefitted from these sorts of training methods, but there often appears to have been little attention paid to the need to do additional training.
Based on previous train busting video, I assume "no, many of the pilots did not have specific training for very low level ground attacks." The previous video sounded like a particular squadron trained/practiced for it, put it into actual usage, then operationalized/distributed their learnings as official guidelines. Regarding basic gunnery, including air-to-ground gunnery, yes, pilots would have received that training, but not necessarily *specialized* low level attacks.
P-38 was a great ground attack plane, with a huge bomb load, a cannon and twin engine redundancy and center line gun firing. It also had better zoom and climb performance as low altitude, which could really help at getting back to a safe altitude quickly. The P-40 was also a decent ground attack plane. Better handling and sturdier than the P-51.
horse werent the only civilian target allied fighters loved to strafe. Women and children too. I wonder how THAT footage didnt get in there. But yeah, poor hus.
Does anyone know what focal length the lens and the film size used in the gun cameras? Some of the passes look extremely close or only the centre section of the frame was used. I do remember hearing about one of the very talented pilot was frequently claiming kills in dog fights on planes that were out of frame of the camera. I believe many of these kills were independently confirmed. The pilot was just very good at accounting for g-forces and future position of the enemy plane. These facts and the need for to be able to resolve useful information from the film when the plane and target were more than 600 feet a part, suggests the lenses used were a telephoto type. Hence why objects look closer than they actually were.
Good video. I think I'm ready to fly for the USAAF. I'm curious about anti aircraft shells and guns. German and Japanese production. Did the Allies target their production facilities? How much did they cost? Are there any accounts of shortages, running out? I think we've all heard about the slave laborers in German munitions factories sabotaging the detonators. But after your recent video of Allied duds. I wondered did this really happen? (I would think the final inspections would not be done by slave laborers but by Germans. A sabotaged detonator being discovered would probably result in executions.)
I read that AA losses were particularly bad when the Germans used automatic radar controlled 20mm flak. Is it possible the Germans had something that sophisticated already?
And the Germans invading the rest of Europe because of their superiority complex and starting a second global conflict directly lead to tens of millions of soldiers dying, and tens of millions more civilians starving and dying.
I’m surprised it wasn’t cut in two. The Germans did use horses to pull ammunition wagons. I doubt many survived the war. Most were likely eaten at the end.
I wish I had a copy of my great uncle's gun camera footage. He flew the P-38 before transitioning to the P-51 and had some incredible footage of a lot of strafing. There must be thousands of hours of gun camera footage out in the world that are essentially lost media because they've never been archived and digitized
I was once hired to print some old negatives of sailing yachts. Terrific images.... but the lens that photographer used had problems, the negs were of low contrast and the overall sharpness was poor. The clips in this video probably represent the generally low quality of most gun footage. Be interesting to know more about why some WWII gun camera footage is so good while so much isn't.
One issue might be reusing developing chemicals. Even the fuzzy images here are very useful for after action and gunnery training, but few of these clips would've made it into a war movie back in the day.
With AI these could provide the 'foundation' for some terrific recreations. I remember a couple of things from May 25th, 1977. Star Wars of course, but also immediately recognizing some specific gun camera clips I'd seen numerous times before, as the basis of the space fighters battling in space.
The film would turn to dust if not stored properly
I know Hollywood lost a lot of the early films due to the film material combined with the lack of proper storage knowledge. Films like Wizard of Oz and its era got stored in salt mines or very controlled vaults. On the aircraft films poor vs good quality, this is an educated guess but the good stuff was meant for propaganda films back home. Good example is the Tarawa film which was done with good color film with the idea it would shown in theaters.
WW2 trivia:: the US military shot a ton of color early in the war. But theater owners complained about it, saying the customers would start demanding they show color films instead of B/W. Because of that much of the color was converted to B/W. Some color did survive as evidenced in the WW2 In Color series on History Ch.
@@LuvBorderCollies thanks for the information, I didn't know that about the theaters.
Battlestar Galactica, otherwise cringeworthy, also had some good air-intercept scenes also inspired by gun-cam, German in that case.
Not all of them were great shots but at least none of them shot in vertical format.
Thanks for another excellent video. This is great stuff.
😂
Your episodes are enjoyed and greatly appreciated Thanks ..!
The adrenalin rush had to be off the chart when making a strafing run.
I did most certainly find this video informative and worthy of my time.
I also think you're onto something, particularly with the gun camera clips
and your comments on them.
Excellent video as always. Marvelous attention to detail and primary sources!
@8:57 - 9:00: the strafing on that Fw190 was personal!!!
At about 08:57 in this video...
It almost looks like that pilot LANDED ON that Fw-190[?].
Another well done and informative episode. Thank you!!!!
Thank you for taking the time to go through all of the footage you make this video! This channel is underrated! History that deserves to be remembered!
The guy at 12:01 wasn't strafing a horse he was strafing the cart it was pulling. At one point they were shooting up anything moving on the roads. It's not the only gun camera footage I have seen shooting up a horse and cart.
German army used horse-drawn supply wagons through out the war.
@@dzhang4459 Exactly my point as to why they shot it up. When Doolittle let the fighters free to go to the deck they hit anything that moved. I saw a piece of film even more graphic than this one where the cart was shattered and you can see the horse bolt and run as the fighter flew over.
"not the horses, no no not the horses..."
@@stlrockn They both good lucky it looks. Since they still hadn't lost their rear. Safe to say they weren't hit directly by the M2s. Shrapnel maybe...
War crimes
I saw one of those veteran story videos from a P47 pilot, and I learned how the losses suffered got worse as they did more ground attacks into Germany, than when they were fighting the Germans in the air.
Some of those passes were LOW!
With all those AAA rounds going up, they do come back down. Getting hit by a falling 20mm round has got to be potentially lethal for exposed ground personnel.
There's a saying that making multiple attacks on a German airfield was not conducive to a long career.
They would most likely be using the minenschloß type round which is fused to explode after a certain distance.
@@JC_WT self destructing 20mm shells were apparently 'a thing'--Heck, I remember memoirs talking about the 'little white shellbursts' from 20mm and of course, even the 633 Squadron movie had used pyrotechnics to recreate those effects (pretty amazing for a 1964 movie).
Yup, light AA cannons self destructed when their tracer burnt out
@@nickmitsialis you can see self-destructing 20mm shells in some gun camera footage.
I very much enjoy watching this channel as I always learn something new and interesting.
Thanks!
Thanks for the kind channel donation. It is much appreciated.
I've always been fascinated by gun camera footage , i could watch it for hours . Thanks . Great info . M
Excellent, informative video. Seeing the number of strikes that the aircraft often take without burning, really makes me question whether 20mm would have been a more effective armament for USAAF aircraft pressed into the ground attack role. I know that this is a complex topic that is often discussed, but this footage brought it once again to mind. I cant imagine pressing home an attack under AAA, getting good hits on target, and the enemy aircraft still being repairable.
Yet another well-presented episode on this very interesting channel, chock full of fascinating details and new facts about the subject at hand (new to me, that is). Well done & thank you!
Col Gabreski found out how not to strafe German airfields.
I worked with a guy that was a B-17 Pilot with the 8th Air Force and he brought in a stack of photographs of different bombing missions . Some showed enemy Fighters close by . I asked him how he took them while he was flying and he said the Dept of Defense put cameras on the planes and since they were too busy to take their own photos they just stole the rolls that were taken from the cameras.
You said at around 10:19 go around for another pass, I was under the impression that second passes were rarely made due to the increased chance of being shot down
At 4:00 it is shown what the Jagdwaffe largely did not use in the Bodenplatte operation and for which reason it partially suffered such large losses, namely the lack of upper fighter cover.
A good counterpart for this is "The Luftwaffe Fighter Force: The View from the Cockpit". Though it lists Adolf Galland as the author, it actually a summary of post-war interrogations/interviews with Galland and a few other Luftwaffe pilots about the workings of that service.
The blurb gives the impression that it's a collection of anecdotes from pilots and aircrew, but it's done more like this with descriptions of everything from how command structures were set up and how mission prep and briefings were carried out.
A section on roles goes into the various forms of ground attack and close air support and shows that the Luftwaffe reached many of the same conclusions about how to go about attacking heavily defended targets like airfields
One interesting thing was how different the same operations could be on the Western and Eastern fronts until late in the war when the equipment and tactics of the Red Air Force had reached greater parity with the RAF & USAAF.
Several times they touch on the importance of the P-51's role in making attacks on the bomber formations drastically more dangerous and less effective. They noted that when Doolittle cut the escorts free from the close escort role and let them range out ahead to seek out the German formations, it was a major blow both in terms of the successes against the bombers and losses among Luftwaffe crews.
That helps explain the high number of Mustangs in the table of losses shown in this video. Although far less suited than the P-47, there were hundreds of them that were free during the return leg of missions to seek out targets of opportunity, so high losses were inevitable.
Interesting, informative, and worthy of my time
The gun camera clips with your commentary are great. Videos with just that would do well I garuntee it
Outstanding presentation.
09:04 four engined twin tailed bomber - captured / repaired lancaster ?
I think so.
A Ju 290 I believe
5:45 How does pushing forward on the stick correct for bullet drop? I don't get it.
I think it may be related to the arc of the bullets being over the sight at the ranges they are shooting at, so you have to aim under the target to get the bullets on target? that or to account for closure to the target. confusing either way.
As you get closer to the target, there is less bullet drop to account for.
Excellent question and I think the explanations below are correct. The gunsight is harmonized with the guns for the optimal range. As you get closer than that you have to lower the muzzles to shorten the range accordingly. The explanation in the video could have been clearer to those of us who need a little thinking to work it out. :-)
I ❤️ this channel!
@@genreynolds6685 I've been thinking that if 1200 ft is the optimal range, then the guns would be sighted in for that range. Then for the initial bursts taken at a range longer than that, the pilot would have to hold the sight over the target, and as he got closer he would have to lower the nose so the sights were on target at 1200 ft, and then maybe be sighting under as he got even closer. But I am speculating and that's not exactly what the document said. Maybe the sights could be adjusted for range depending on how close.
I can imagine how terrifying it must have been to see a P 47 coming straight at you but 48 P 47s at one time in one raid? Nightmare fuel!
You likely wouldn’t live long enough to have a nightmare. Of course some did, if they didn’t happen to be the target. But much of the nightmare scenario was living through your last moments before you died.
Good to msee the number of subscriptions creeping up!
12:00 one of the horses from an earlier table :(
I assume the added danger of strafing an airdrome could feature into the difference in gunnery discipline we see compared with your train attack video. For example, one clip of an academically-less-than-perfect attack looked like a fighter taxiing, which could increase the hurry-up-and-adjust-and-you-better-darn-well-get-it rush, which increases spray throughout the aim adjustment. Dangerous, dangerous work...
Any stats on how many pilots hit the ground? Some footage, judging by angle of attack and proximity to the ground, really make you wonder.
Any plans on a video about 5th Air Force strafing and skip bombing tactics?
I found this video interesting, informative and worthy of my time 🙂👍
Once again, excellent use of primary source material in your presentation! Could you please research and present the accomplishments of the USAAF 9th AF in the ETO as well? Thanks!
[~2:26]
I wish we could get a comparative analysis of overall *sortie* rates, between the P-38, the P-47, and the P-51, during the period covered by this loss-rate chart. Without knowing how many total missions each of these different types are involved in, their "relative" loss numbers are rendered almost meaningless as a point of comparison.
Same thing I was thinking at the previous showing of this chart on the train-strafing video. I get that the USAAF in the end favored the P-47 for ground strafing (of whatever specific type of target) due to its firepower and ruggedness. (Similar story with the USN/USMC keeping the Corsair on the carriers well into the Korean war! A whole 'nother discussion...) BUT... I still have a sneaking suspicion, that the relative qualities of the P-38 against ground targets, were/are being given short shrift? Maybe? Because there were far fewer of the P-38s in E.T.O. by this point? I guess? HOW MANY ? Is what I would like to know.
At the very least, I would think P-38s' central gun-grouping, should make it more effective for ground-strafing starting at much longer ranges than the "ideal" 400 yards cited in the train-busting vid? The particular point about no "convergence" issue with the Lightning, was not fully/directly addressed in the limited discussion about "optimal firing range". (You did make the generic statement about P-38 "Accuracy"... But didn't specify whether that modifies the particular 400-yd range guidance.) If the wing-mount guns of a P-40/-47/-51 are focused/tuned/harmonized (what is the right term for this?) to cross at 400 yards, then that will obviously be the most effective range. But while bullet drop (re. target-aiming) and velocity loss (re. penetration) become obviously detrimental at longer ranges, still the P-38 should have at least a marginally better factor of "versatility" on the range issue, simply due to the center-line gun configuration.
I highly enjoy all of your vids generally. So I hope my quibbling about some specific details therein, does not imply any undue broader criticism of either your vast research work, or your resulting presentations. Both aspects of your efforts are much admired and appreciated.
[Edited for a minor typo]
Regarding P-38 numbers, I thought the train-busting video had a chart showing numbers of each type in service in the theatre by month.
@@erickent3557 Oof. That would be exactly (or, well, at least PART of) what I was asking for. I must have missed it? I'll re-look, later this afternoon when I get some time.
Thanks.
THAT SAID : It still strikes me as more than a little silly in the first place, that this original USAAF document showing losses, doesn't at least have totals of each type in service for the same period in question, as simply another column on the same page. Why anybody ever thought merely listing type losses without corresponding sortie rates was usefully illustrative of anything for any purpose, other than parity replacement needs, is beyond me.
2:32 still thinking of that one Droop-Snoot loss
8:59, guessing that's roughly 7 - 8 feet off the ground ??!
Where the opening strafing runs colorized or filmed in color (seems unlikely)?
Good video, thank you 🙂
Rommel talked about " taxi ranks" of American aircraft circling and looking for targets.
He knew that they needed strong defences because movement of tanks would become highly problematic.
When it seems they are just randomly shooting, they are probably at the brink of sensory overload. Worried about getting shot down, coping with G-Forces, trying to keep the aircraft where they want it to go, and not flying into the ground, while trying to get a good sight picture on something as they are moving at around 400 mph. Most likely a tad difficult to do all that at once....
This was Out”fricken”standing! I’ve always loved the history of World War II, especially European theater! Being a pilot, like most pilots, the P51 and the P38 are two favorite aircraft! Along with the Corsair! I was fortunate enough at the airport. I went to during aviation class in high school, there was a P51 & a Corsair! Getting my PPL in 10th grade, Occasionally, going to fly at the airport, I started out at. I listed in the military, after training Getting our orders to deploy. The gentleman, who know the sisters that taught us, knew “at the time” in 2006 that deployment to Iraq wasent in our favor. After literally a week of going over everything, I was so very fricking lucky to fly “for the first time” a P51 mustang! The power is amazing, it’s something you have to experience!
Luckily, we live in a time where you can actually pay to fly trainer aircraft and dogfight! Using paint rounds & basically laser tag dogfighting! If you’re a pilot, I suggest you to go for it, especially if you love history and or just interested in checking out your skills it’s fun as hell by the way!
I remember hearing Chuck Yeager talking about strafing horse drawn wagons, wonder if that was him in the film clip.
It might be possible to match his combat log to the timestamp on the film clip you showed.
good research and video, it’s a topic I’ve always wondered about. Your video provides more interesting material on the subject.
IIRC that clip you are recalling about Mr. Yeager was a horse-drawn wagon being attacked on a road, not this one at an airfield. The attack is at such close range you can see that the wagon was the target, not the horse which bolts and runs as the wagon disintegrates behind it...very possibly injured of course.
I can’t see Chuck Yeager gratuitously shooting a horse somehow. People he didn’t like, sure, but not horses.
Funny how that clip of the horse wagon has stuck in my mind from the early days of TH-cam. Even if uninjured the horse was clearly terrified and I feel bad seeing an animal suffer even psychologically, even though it was blameless on the part of the fighter pilot.
A number of tri-motors that were not Ju-52s being attacked. Italian I think..
how far away are the targets on camera?
Great video. Any idea of the cost effectiveness of straffing vs aerial combat? i.e. the kill:loss ratio. I imagine it was more risky, but necessary to maintain aerial superiority. It also risks your pilots but not theirs which could attrition your experienced pilots, similar with the home field advantage of the Battle of Britain.
I guess this would be an early precision weapon attack. And hits from a .50API likely would do far more damage than fragments from a bomb, able to pierce through engine blocks and gearboxes so you can't repair it with new components and also almost guarantee a fire from any fuel leak.
Did the Germans use wooden decoys or stuff like berms or fences to make strafing harder?
Berms were seen in some of the footage. Usually where one otmr two planes parked in a hexagon or stretched hexagon.
yes
Decoys, yes.
We just had film developed from the pacific campaign and printed over into color. Film was found in an old envelope from my grandfather. Has photos of Japan after the war as well.
Seems like some tall telegraph poles and wire would be a good deterrent or help funnel straffers into known avenues of approach along the axis of the runways. Probably something I'm missing because it would have been done if it was useful most likely.
Both sides did that in the form of barrage balloons. Large balloons anchored to the ground with thick cables. But on an airstrip they would be as dangerous to your own aircraft
Your opener was strafing Japanese aifields , red roundels bit of a give away ????
It was actually a German base trying a new method of confusing Allied fighters. It was to make them think they'd flown WAY off course and demoralize them.
I assume he chose those videos because they are in color.
@@erickent3557 Well Ii did assume that but fun to pull a leg now and again , had seen that clip before on a gun camera item !!!
@@stevenbowman7766 Darn it, the humor buzzed right over my head!
@@erickent3557 British humour , very hard to pin in place sometimes ?
Has anyone seen documentation of the P-47 ammo loadout for ground attack vs escort missions? More than doubling the weight of the design ammunition load would have to reduce aircraft performance a bit below book values. Was ammunition always overloaded, or was it only for certain missions?
From AN 01-65BC-1A:
"Guns -- Eight .50 calibre guns, four in each wing are provided. Only six guns with ammunition are included in the design useful load." [...] "The maximum load is 425 rounds each. Desired loading with six guns is 267 rounds each, and with eight guns, 200 rounds each." [...]
Would be interesting to analyze the Japanese strafing attacks on Pearl Harbor and Kaneohe
Did many of these pilots have specific training for these very low level ground attacks? I know at the time there were some very basic analogue simulators or instruments, were any of these used? What about practice airfields with simple wooden targets? I am sure that many pilots would have benefitted from these sorts of training methods, but there often appears to have been little attention paid to the need to do additional training.
Based on previous train busting video, I assume "no, many of the pilots did not have specific training for very low level ground attacks." The previous video sounded like a particular squadron trained/practiced for it, put it into actual usage, then operationalized/distributed their learnings as official guidelines. Regarding basic gunnery, including air-to-ground gunnery, yes, pilots would have received that training, but not necessarily *specialized* low level attacks.
7:17 “ME-109….Destroyed: 2535 1/2…” How do you DESTROY half of an aircraft?! 10:16 Dang! What was sitting in that house/barn? Ordnance?
P-38 was a great ground attack plane, with a huge bomb load, a cannon and twin engine redundancy and center line gun firing. It also had better zoom and climb performance as low altitude, which could really help at getting back to a safe altitude quickly. The P-40 was also a decent ground attack plane. Better handling and sturdier than the P-51.
10:15 can't imagine the pilot's shock/fear in that moment
I wonder if gun camera footage was ever used to "coach" a pilot for better results? ❤ The Channel 👍
How did that get in there lol
Poor hus
horse werent the only civilian target allied fighters loved to strafe. Women and children too. I wonder how THAT footage didnt get in there. But yeah, poor hus.
@@MadCDeeJay wehraboo delusions
Beggars beleif how low some of those passes were!
Brown underpants me thinks
Poor horse
Does anyone know what focal length the lens and the film size used in the gun cameras? Some of the passes look extremely close or only the centre section of the frame was used. I do remember hearing about one of the very talented pilot was frequently claiming kills in dog fights on planes that were out of frame of the camera. I believe many of these kills were independently confirmed. The pilot was just very good at accounting for g-forces and future position of the enemy plane. These facts and the need for to be able to resolve useful information from the film when the plane and target were more than 600 feet a part, suggests the lenses used were a telephoto type. Hence why objects look closer than they actually were.
According to Google - 35mm on a 16mm gun camera.
Good video. I think I'm ready to fly for the USAAF. I'm curious about anti aircraft shells and guns. German and Japanese production. Did the Allies target their production facilities? How much did they cost? Are there any accounts of shortages, running out?
I think we've all heard about the slave laborers in German munitions factories sabotaging the detonators. But after your recent video of Allied duds. I wondered did this really happen? (I would think the final inspections would not be done by slave laborers but by Germans. A sabotaged detonator being discovered would probably result in executions.)
10:15 "ooooops!"
Horses; "you just don't lead them as much..."🐿🚁
Interesting that some of the aircraft on the ground were Italian.
@ 12:23 must of been a rookie pilot!
I read that AA losses were particularly bad when the Germans used automatic radar controlled 20mm flak. Is it possible the Germans had something that sophisticated already?
Why are you asking? - a google search says "yes"
I'm not a huge fan of the gun camera footage at the end of the last couple of videos. I feel like I have seen all this footage many times before.
What an odd thing to complain about. Only tiny selection of gun cam footage was saved and archived. What is he supposed to do? Make new ones?
The Germans feared the P47 ground attacks. Not so much of the P-51 which was easy to shoot down compared to the P-47.
I doubt they were able to tell which type was attacking them while running for their lives.
Yes they could@dzhang4459
You can't hear the different engines and fuelsadge of plane.
The allies taking out anything and everything that moved is what led to millions of war prisoners and civilians to starve.
And the Germans invading the rest of Europe because of their superiority complex and starting a second global conflict directly lead to tens of millions of soldiers dying, and tens of millions more civilians starving and dying.
That is really low flying.
@ 9 minutes.. Jesus kid. Pull up! 😮
Except that those are Japanese aircraft on those airfields.
poor horse :(
I’m surprised it wasn’t cut in two.
The Germans did use horses to pull ammunition wagons. I doubt many survived the war. Most were likely eaten at the end.
WWII US Fighters
A horse??? Bad form!!!
This is another video that the Ukrainian Armed Forces need to watch!.
9:03 a Lancaster!!!???