F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible. Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
Would you be able to do a video talking about the junkers ju 86? I feel like it's a pretty neat bomber especially with those unique diesel engines and it even saw service with Sweden but they used radial engines instead
I could be wrong, but I believe that you should be able to use video clips in your videos without having to pay for them. This is under section 107 of the copyright act of 1976. It's an allowance that was made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by the copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Your videos are made for entertainment purposes, and are transformative in nature. If it wasn't for the "fair use" act most of the videos on TH-cam would have to be taken down. I don't see why fair use wouldn't apply to you. There are several channels that review old movies and TV shows. They show clips all the time without having to pay because of fair use.
@@Jonathan.D I have tried, but many of the clips are already on youtube, usually uploaded by British Pathe or Periscope films, and so when I try to use them it gets picked up by the system :( Sometimes I get lucky, like with this video, the clip at the beginning cost me nothing, but other times its expensive lol.
The crash of the B-17 prototype was the reason that checklists were introduced. (The crew had omitted to disengage an internal rudder lock.) Aircraft had become too complex for memory-based procedures that were perfectly adequate for the simpler light machines of the time.
My Dad's old business partner was a flying sergeant in WWII who flew a 75mm equipped B-25J. He said the recoil made you think the plane had stopped momentarily in the air.
The US did not have flying sergeants. He likely flew ON a B-25, possibly loading that 75mm cannon. Either that, or he was a defensive gunner. Pilots, Navigators, and Bombardiers were ALWAYS officers on US aircraft.
In system engineering, they teach to prioritize a system that cost effectively meets the threshold (minimum) requirements over an expensive system that exceeds the objective requirements. I shall use this video as a counterpoint to that philosophy.
@@mkendallpk4321 sometimes. Sometimes the bottom line is fine. For example, when looking at cow patty brands you don't need one that uses only cow pats from specially fed, raised, and prepared cows. You just need cow shit, no bells and whistles. It's all situational.
At the end of the day one can only make a truly informed decision by considering the total context. Sometimes the bottom line is really the most important, but it is never the only thing. It is only when you evaluate the whole environment you're going to be using something in that you can make a good decision. Purely bean-counting is by definition tunnel vision
When I took system engineering it’s also said that if technological advancement threatens to make the product obsolete in the projected lifespan, the added cost of said obsolescence to upgrade/develop to meet the new threshold or revenue lost should be accounted for. Which I think works in this case
Failure to future proof is a common theme when establishing specifications or minimum requirements. That is my PoV anyway, based on 35+ years experience as engineer and technical manager in systems/electronic industry. It is sometimes hard to strike the right balance though. What is harder to understand is the US not changing tack after seeing events in Spain then Europe from 1936 onwards...
As a former researcher, I really admire the in-depth nature of the excellent research in every video. There is always interesting information, presented with a wry sense of humor. Very well done, indeed!
The Douglas B-23 Dragon next please - the B-18 Bolo successor - a beautiful design (though terrible for it's original concept) that survives in surprising numbers considering only 38 built (and used as executive transports for years)
Would you believe the B-23 was briefly considered for the Doolittle raid on Tokyo? Thankfully the B-25 was a such a superior combat a/c that there was never any serious competition!
I always liked the B-18 mainly because it was named 'Bolo'. Don't ask me why but I always get a chuckle out of that name. And it looks goofy enough for my odd tastes. Oh and I forgot I also really liked the nose guns ball shaped glass mount. This looks kind of advanced for the pre-war era.
I agree that the b-18 wasn't a great bomber due to a lot of things such as poor timing. However, one must yet again admit the rugged dependability of Douglas DC airframes. While we all know of the DC-3's storied career that continues on to this day, with dozens if not hundreds still in service, the B-18 was based on the earlier DC-2, and during the war went from bomber, to anti-sub, to transport and trainer. Always working away in some capacity. After the war, some being sold for civil transport, cargo, air spray, and firefighting duties, many flying on into the 60's and beyond. Douglas knew how to build a useful aircraft, even if the B-18 didn't fulfill its intended bomber role so well.
There's a company in the US extending and reinforcing C-47/DC-3 airframes, installing modern electronics, fitting them with turboprop engines, and selling them as gunships. Sometimes a thing is just made so "right" that it refuses to die.
While it was passed over for bomber the B-18 was superbly suitable for anti-submarine work as accounted in book The Douglas B-18 and B-23: America's Forsaken Warriors by Dan Hagedorn Sr. and Dan Hagedorn Jr.
@@itsapittie Basler in WI. I believe they only do the refurbishment and turboprop conversion. The "gunship" portion likely happens in whatever strange country employs them
@@johnwkindig1613 That may be right. Regardless, I can think of several things a smaller country might use such a conversion for besides gunships. Such a stable platform should make a good medevac or refueling aircraft, for example.
My grandmother’s cousin flew B18’s before the war with the 88th recon squadron, and then the group transitioned to B17’s. He was actually at Hickam on Dec 7th with a B24 spy plane. After Pearl Harbor he flew B17’s again for awhile before becoming a B29 bomb group commander.
While the B17 is legendary I had never heard of a B18 until recently, I think you mentioned it? Worth noting that a DC2 came second in the MacRobertson Air Race, England to Australia, behind a DH Comet. Of course the later military DC3 is another legend along with the B17.
@@SkinPeeleR G'day, Yes, indeed. Uiver of the famous Car-Headlight lit night-landing at Albury...; a World First, at the time. Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
The Douglas equivalent of the B-18 Bolo using DC-3 parts instead of DC-2 parts was the B-23 Dragon. The Dragon also fed back into the C-47 F with its tail design being used on the C-117.
@@allangibson2408 Yes, @SkinpeeleR the Uiver, lost in a storm and low on fuel, emergency landing at Albury. @Allan Gibson, I am not aware of a B23, but know the DC3 variant, the Dakota/C-47.
@@stephenremington8448 You are probably also unaware that a DC-2 wing will fit on a DC-3… (The DC-2 has fewer bolts however they are at exactly the same locations as the DC-3 wing attachment bolts - look up the DC-2 1/2 for some fun)…
Would you consider doing a video on the Beechcraft 18? It was used to train the vast majority of USAAF navigators and bombardiers during WWII. The plane itself was in production for 33 years. (1937 to 1970) Which is an accomplishment in itself.
So glad you did this video - these flew out of the airbase (now airport) that’s just down from my house. I’d wondered what B-18s over Cape Cod might have been like, so thanks for putting this together!
It was one of those designs that looked good on paper but not in the real world. So they tried to follow in Germany’s footsteps by taking an airliner and converting for military use. Good video
Germany did modify their Ju-52 for use as a bomber and it was moderately successful in that role--but most of the early war German bombers were designed as a bomber and advertised as commercial aviation: mail planes, fast transports. Their reason for designing a bomber and then using it as a mail plane was to disguise producing war planes. The Ju-52 trimotor had performance similar to the DC-2 and Germany transport aircraft did include one other airliner that was converted to the bomber role--the Condor by Focke-Wulf. When used as a maritime bomber, the FW-200 had several shortcomings because it had originally been designed for economy and for transporting passengers in comfort. Giulio Douhet, Italy's air prophet, recommended designing civilian aviation so that its airliners could be reconfigured as bombers--but died in 1930 just as a giant leap forward in aviation technology occurred. Germany began secretly building the Luftwaffe after 25 February 1935, after Hitler signed the authorization. Design of the B-18 goes back to the end of 1934. Clever of those Americans--copying something that hadn't yet been developed--and developed in secret, too!
My father was a B-18B crew member and flew anti-sub missions out of Atlantic City, New Jersey. He liked the B-18, saying that due to its airliner roots, it was a fairly spacious and comfortable airplane.
Lockheed built the Hudson from the Super Electra airliner, the Ventura from the Loadstar airliner. The Bristol Blenheim bomber was built from the Bristol Britain First business aircraft. The Bolo wasn’t the problem - the budget available was.
Even making an airliner out of a bomber is not such a good idea. Boeing built their prewar Stratoliner based on their B-17 and only ten were built. The postwar Boeing Stratocruiser was based on their B-29 Superfortress and really wasn't that successful with only about 55 built.
@@WAL_DC-6B The Boeing 377 was undermined by unreliable engines. They pretty much had an engine failure on every transatlantic flight, with the engine falling entirely off the aircraft on multiple occasions. The essentially identical C-97 (Model 367) should also be included in the total (adding another 77 airframes with 888 total in all C-97 variants, mostly KC-97G air to air refueling tankers). The military versions outnumbered the civilians ones 40 to 1 (with more Stratocruisers, Stratofreighters and Stratotankers built than 707’s).
Digbys serving with RCAF Eastern Air Command stationed in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland did fairly well in the anti-submarine role, sinking a number of German U-boats during the Battle of the Atlantic.
From my understanding, the crash of the B-17 meant that it was actually disqualified since the tests were incomplete, and it was the only prototype. However, the army air core, recognizing a winner when they saw one, obtained a few for... "testing"
Please do a video of the Me-410 with special attention paid to how the rear gunner's sight worked and how the gun's controls made the guns rotate and elevate, etc. Also the MANY armament variants including one with 6 20mm cannons paired with 4 13mm machine guns in the nose and pods. Incredible! I have a book somewhere that has the variant pictures, but it's buried in one of my many boxes of books.
Another great video! Don't forget that Douglas didn't necessarily learn that lesson about civil aircraft being unsuited to be adapted into true combat aircraft; Case in point the Douglas B-23 Dragon. I'd love to see a video on that bird, the first time the DC-3 was given teeth, before the advent of the AC-47. XD
Your assessment omits one fact. Prior to 1940 The US military (Department of War and Navy Department) had no money. US Army was smaller than Brazil's. Army did have rifles for it's soldiers, very few armored forces and Air Corps that was ignored as a waste of resources. The Navy had battleships of WW1 design. The USA was Non interventionist. The US had dozens of Aircraft companies in the infant airplane business. Look to the treatment of General Mitchell to explain Airr Power attitudes. Times were different
Regarding battleships specifically, everyone who had battleships at the time had them of WW1 design or earlier. The Washington Naval Treaty put a 10 year moratorium on new battleship construction that was renewed in 1930 with tbe London Naval Treaty, so no one on earth was starting new battleship construction until 1935 except the French and Italians, both of whom hadn't been able to previously afford to build up to their treaty-allowed tonnage. The US actually even had the problem of their ships being less modernized than the Royal Navy and Japanese Navy in 1941 specifically because the US Navy had put their battleships through an extensive modernization in the mid-late 1920s so in the early 30s they were actually the most modernized battle line of the 5 major naval powers, largely thanks to cannibalizing the materials that had been set aside to build new battleships canceled by the Washington Naval Treaty
Incorrect. By 1940 they did have money. It was an isolationist decision by FDR to ban purchases of all 4 engine bombers from 1938-39 which was a travesty in terms of how that decision prolonged WWII by at least 2 years. MacArthur and Frank Andrews led the campaign to develop the B-17 up through 1935.
Enjoy your channel very much, have you ever thought about doing a cessna model? Perhaps the L19 bird dog or the a37 tweet. thanks again for such great content.
MacArthur as Army Chief of Staff from 1930-35 endorsed the B-17 and 4 engine bombers. He was the one who picked Frank Andrews to do R&D for B-17s because he knew his successors and the War Department were anti 4 engine bombers.
Thank you for the detailed information n on a pretty much forgotten plane. I had forgotten that it was based on the DC 2. I think a number of B 18s were also destroyed at Clark Field when Japan attacked the Philippines.
On the submarine not credited as killed. There is a video (?mililitary history or drachinfel?) about some of the issue. In this case the sub has multiple fuel tanks. Crack some and you get an oil slick. That tank fills with sea water. Overall affect of weight on the sub not very much. It could, as in more than 0%, only lost range. The sub might have still been able to maneuver while chosing not to surface until hours later when the plane would have had to leave for its own fuel reasons. Confirming sub kills is a tricky business since sinking and coming back later "is its jam".
The B-18 was a development of the DC-2 while the B-23 was a development of the DC-3. There were only a few dozen or so B-23's built I think and quite a sleek bird compared to the B-18. You can see both aircraft at the Pima Air Museum, Tucson AZ.
I love this museum! They do have an amazing collection of rare, hard to find aircraft. I go there at least once a year and spend the day closely examining aircraft. I figure in another 10 years I will get to them all.
Exactly so. We forget how rapid aircraft development was in that period. The XB-17 was not the aircraft that fought in WW2; a lot of improvements were yet to come. The design really didn’t become the offensive weapon we remember until the B-17E in late 1941…fully 6 years later.
It would also lead to the greatest US light/medium attack bomber - the DB-7/A-20 series. Those aircraft would more than make up for the folly of the B-18 & B-23.
Juan Brown from the Blancolirio channel hiked to a Bolo bomber in California. He made a good video of it a couple of years ago. It is non-recoverable from what I saw, but it is mostly intact. Can't find it quickly.... :(
Sadly, I have never heard about the "B-18" Aircraft Bomber... But the B-17 was VERY STRONGLY modeled/designed after the B-10. So glad to see (watch videos) about the multiple variations of aircraft that where used in WWII! -Thank you, Thomas Port Orchard, Washington State USA
I tell people that weapon procurement is 90% political, 9% logistics and only 1% performance. This video reinforces my conceit. One of the reasons that many opposed the B-17 is that the Boeing Flying Fortress had too much performance--and the political reason for opposing the development and procurement of the strategic bomber is that planes such as the B-17 were useful in wars of aggression--the B-18 less so, while having all the performance required for a defensive war. One of the Pearl Harbor stories was a squadron of B-17 bombers was destroyed as it came in for landing at Hickam Field on Oahu. The largest concentration of B-17 bombers was Clark Field in the Philippines and their target was Formosa (present-day Taiwan), Japanese territory. B-17 bombers had the range and could carry at least a ton of bombs (perhaps two tons) that far--the B-18 without bombs had trouble flying that far. As for the coastal defense role, your video mentioned testing 75mm cannon on the B-18. Level bombing from high altitude (out of range of light anti-aircraft guns such as Japan's 25mm) proved ineffective on moving ships (the same complaint the Navy had when Billy Mitchell sank two surplus battleships in 1923--high altitude level bombing did work against ships at anchor or tied up to docks) and the heaviest artillery piece possible was fitted experimentally to test the concept. The B-25 Mitchell had some success with the 75mm, but the "heavy" aircraft cannon was replaced by salvos of heavy rockets and by guided bombs at the end of the war. The B-18 was selected over the B-17 primarily for political reasons and Major Hill crashing the Boeing Model 299 (B-17 prototype) was just an excuse. The high-performance B-17 was a weapon of offensive warfare. The B-18 was regarded as a defensive weapon.
My father flew B-18B anti-sub patrol for about a year. He talked about them being belonging in a scrap yard. Engine pumping so much oil that on take off they would pull change spark plugs at end of runway to get enough power to take off. Got caught in storm cloud and stretched the 300 bolts attaching outer wings by a turn or so.Was friendly fire target several times.
During various hearings the head of the army air force in Hawaii claimed the the B18 was unsuited for the recon role or the anti submarine role purposely understating its range and claimed the windows were in the wrong place. He also forbade training flights beyond visual range of Oahu. This video puts these claims false. What the commander was really doing was trying to justify why all his planes were caught on the ground. Flight logs show that the B18s hardly flew. I suspect if he had all the B17s he said he needed (180 as I recall) they would have been caught on the ground as well.
The transition from peacetime commanders too aggressive wartime commanders started after December 7th. For the first year it was trial and error at finding the right men. Those relieved typically went to stateside assignments.
@@Idahoguy10157 agree in part. the Army command in Hawaii was grossly negligent in terms of using the assets provided for their intended purpose. Admiral Kimmel on the other hand was out generaled by allowing his fleet to be bottled up and destroyed.
@@Freedomfred939 …. Kimmel and Short took all the blame for Dec 7th. How deficient were they? Compared to Washington…. I’m somewhat familiar with Kimmel. I think he was blamed more than he deserved.
@@Idahoguy10157 Short was given the 80 of best fighters, 90 of the latest antiaircraft guns and 6 radar sets along with trained radar interception unit failed to employ any of them. He owns the largest share of the disaster. He also ordered the Army to stand down the 6 and 7th of December.
@@Idahoguy10157 The general staff was mostly made up of junior WW1 officers who never went overseas and instead learned the peacetime military game: _politics._ Some learned what it took to fight. A lot never did.
And the old battleships… Imagine those plow horses out at sea , a la the Repulse and Prince of Wales. However they’d have air cover. Lots of Buffaloes to shield them from attack. Ugh.
13:11 The first two aircraft came in April 1942, 4 months before Brazil’s entrance in WW2, those being used first for training the new pilots in the new aircraft they were receiving, and then transferred to active duty on the “front”. The third unit came in 1944, it was destined for the Aviation Technical School, it seems that It never flew actually. A fourth unit was going to be delivered in 1945, but it crashed on February 18th, in the city of San Jose in Guatemala, during it's ferry flight About those two, they were numbered “FAB 6300” and “FAB 7032”. The one who took part on the attack was the 6300. The U-boat in question was U-154, she was trying to attack the Belgian tanker “SS Motorcarline”, the B-18 prevented her to do so, and escorted Motorcarline back to port. U-154 wasn’t sunk, she was probably damaged, because she continue to terrorize the shipping around these parts. Almost a month after that, in June 3rd, she tried to attack convoy BT-12, escorted by cruiser Bahia and corvette Camaquã of the Brazilian Navy. Camaquã detected U-154 first and both ships made a depth charge barrage but she managed to escape again. The Colombian destroyer “Caldas” also attacked U-154 in the night of March 29, 1944. Caldas managed to land two 120mm hits on her, and also depth charged it after U-154 dived. But again, U-154 managed to survive. She only meet her end in July 3rd, in the North Atlantic north-west of Madeira, Portugal. Sunk by destroyer escorts USS Inch and USS Frost
A caricatured B-18 appears in the Bugs Bunny cartoon titled, "Falling Hare." The 'toon features a cute but destructive gremlin: one of only two characters who ever messed with Bugs and got away with it
I'm surprised you didn't mention the B-23 Dragon in this as it was an attempt to "modernize" the Bolo and put it at least on par with other contemporary medium bomber aircraft of the time. I believe the last 30 or so B-18's that Douglas was contracted to deliver were actually delivered as B-23's.
While I'm not one who likes watching ads I will compliment about sponsor spot in this video. I enjoyed was actually scripted instead of just a canned ad thing made by the company the ad is about.
Rex, great channel, I'm a happy subscriber. I wanted to note your SurfShark promo, nicely integrated and written into your content (you didn't sound like you were reading someone else's copy). I'm not in the market for a VPN, I would look at SS if I were, simply for their relationship to your channel and support of quality content like yours. Cheers! 👏👍🖖
The commissions statement (at 2:33) does not seem to have been heeded as wrong by the British MoD when they published their defense white paper in 1957. A document that all but destroyed the British aviation industry. What is it they say about those not learning from history?
That opening shot of a bunch of B-18s flying past what I believe is Mount Rainier leads me to wonder what Douglas is doing in Boeing's territory! Perhaps they were stationed at Boeing Field or McCord Air Base, Or did Boeing also build them under contract? (I haven't watched the rest of the video yet).
One can look at this way. By accepting the cheaper B-18 Bolo the USAAC at least had a sizable bomber fleet (and one cheap enough to be expandable), giving Boeing even more time to continue improving what would become the legendary B-17. Had the US mainland, for some strange Ahistorical reason, been invaded in the late 30's, the B-18 would have actually been a decent bomber of the defense for the day. Not great, but pretty good. It's sheer numbers would have made up for some of it's shortcomings if fighting on home soil. The B-18 was a good stop-gap measure in the 30's that proved to be versatile in many support roles later on in life. One shouldn't be too hard on the B-18 or the USAAC at the time. While the B-17 at the testing was superior in power, capacity, range and speed, (accident aside) it did not perform as well as should and did expose many teething problems that still needed to be worked out, while the Air Corps needed a bomber now, and they needed it cheaply. The B-18, being built from already known and proven technology was ready to go right out of the box, while the B-17 with several new innovations, just needed some more time in the oven before going prime time.
> the B-17 with several new innovations, just needed some more time in the oven before going prime time. too true. when the RAF took most of the B-17C procurement via Lend-Lease, they thought the new superbomber would be the very thing to give Hitler hell in high-altitude night raids. how wrong they were. this was when the subtle instability of the "shark fin" airframe was made plain - resulting in hopelessly inaccurate bombing and debilitating airsickness among the crews. in addition, the RAF flew the '17s so high up that both planes and crew suffered seriously from the cold. the lessons learned resulted in entirely new B-17s - models E, F and G. these were the bombers that helped devastate Fortress Europe in the hands of the 8th AF.
Good luck to tail en Charlie with no tailgunner. Knowing the damage on US bombers over Europe this would not have lasted long, And DC-2/3 is a barge even with both engines. Very few from a formation would have been able to return from a bombing mission over Germany.
The B-17 did not have a tail gunner position until the E variant. If you watch the WWII propaganda movie "Air Force" it showed how they had the pilot yaw the plane so the waist gunners could shoot to the rear. The Paul Muni character came up with the idea of sawing off the end of the tail and mounting a M1919 machine gun there. He fired it while lying prone in the rear of the ship.
Eh, the gunner positions were dubiously useful anyway. Blocks of bombers throwing tons of lead at interceptors did next to nothing, which is why day light raids without air superiority or fighter escort were ended.
@@jeffstrom164 I have a friend who actually talked to a German ex-fighter pilot. According to him, attacking a B-17 formation (even without fighter escort) was like trying to beat a porcupine to death with a stick. Sure, it's *doable,* but the fighters would get shredded in the process doing it. The only way they could effectively destroy a bomber formation was to break it up with Flak AA ground support, then defeat in detail. A fighter escort did not "save" the B-17 formations, it reduced their casualties. Well-armed strategic bombers* are a menace to a fighters, unless attacked en masse and no, they never ended "Daylight raids with escort." The 8th Air Force did their missions, come hell or high water, escort or no escort. Their casualty lists were tremendous for a reason. *Ones with good cover like a B-17 or Lancaster.
@@thebighurt2495 1. I didn't say they ended escorted day raids, I said they ended non escorted day raids. 2. The 17s that flew unescorted suffered horrendous casualties from interceptors like 109s and 190s. Our boys were brave, but they didn't shoot down squat on thier own. The death toll was around three 17s shot down for each fighter downed by a 17. In one engagement we lost 47 b17s to thier 13 bf109s. That's 470 of us dead to 13 of them. They carved us up resulting in changes to tactics and equipment.
@@jeffstrom164 The armament of bombers did at least something, All i am saying is that the Bolo had very little something and would be absolutely unsuited for the job. There was just not enough weapons and durability when it comes to the Bolo.
I'm not sure why the fact that General Billy Mitchell's sinking of the Ostfreisland, in 1921, as proof of the capability to airpower is omitted. The argument wasn't whether airpower, specifically bombers, was irrelevant, but what degree it would be used to fight wars. Most saw aircraft, especially the bomber, as a Tactical weapon rather than a Strategic Weapon, and which service would have the greatest need for aircraft. The idea that Airpower was ineffectual on effecting the outcome of wars was largely over by the mid 1930's
Not in the War Department and U.S. govt from 1936 to 1939. It was isolationism which led to the banning of R&D and purchase of B-17s. Malin Craig said B-17s were too offensive and "threatening" to Japan and Germany so B-18s were the main bomber of the USAAC/USAAF up through December 1941.
Its brother, the DC3, created modern air travel. It served as a fantastic troop transport and went on to become the first airliner deemed safe enough that one could procure insurance.
In the end, it ended up being a surprisingly successful aircraft despite being rendered obsolete for its designed use early in the war. Still reliable, relatively cheap compared to the newer four-engined bombers, and capable in the absence of enemy fighters, it did make a capable anti-submarine and training aircraft, which is better than a lot of aircraft of its era rendered obsolete.
Being playing in my head how I would help arm Canada starting in 1935 with reasonable sized pot of magic money, a small order of Anson and the B18 were my choice, considering the size of the RCAF at the time and trying to convince them to use the B18's for coastal patrol, which I suspect would meet some resistance within the RCAF, as there were pushing hard to be more of frontline combat force. Having 12 of these fitted for coastal patrol at the beginning of WWII would have been helpful to cover the approaches to the East Coast and Newfoundland.
Its not rare to get a big oil slick but not kill the Uboat (tanks are normally external to the pressure hull, under what is only a hydrodynamic cover), and a great many Uboats returned to port with heavy damage but where not total losses. Hence confirmation requires a lot more than oil or small debris.
You really dropped the ball on this one. Boeing's Model 299 was disqualified because it hadn't completed all the tests at the time of the crash, which made it ineligible. That's the primary reason the Bolo won the competition, although the price difference didn't help. Also the Army was subject to a ridiculously tiny budget from Congress. They did the best they could at the time. There was honest debate at the time whether the country _needed_ an "offensive" bomber. The B-18 was deemed sufficient to reinforce Hawaii, the Canal Zone, and Alaska, which was the official requirement. Also also, in 1935 Hitler was still just an objectionable gangster; increased armaments were deemed unnecessary, especially in light of the (probably apocryphal) stories of "war profiteers" of WW1.
![It Rewrote The Book On Bomber Design | Martin B-10 [Aircraft Overview #43]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-MmIL52IkgI/mqdefault.jpg)
![It Rewrote The Book On Bomber Design | Martin B-10 [Aircraft Overview #43]](/img/tr.png)
![The British Bomber That Looked Utterly Ridiculous | Handley Page Heyford [Aircraft Overview #91]](/img/n.gif)
F.A.Q Section
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
Would you be able to do a video talking about the junkers ju 86? I feel like it's a pretty neat bomber especially with those unique diesel engines and it even saw service with Sweden but they used radial engines instead
I could be wrong, but I believe that you should be able to use video clips in your videos without having to pay for them. This is under section 107 of the copyright act of 1976. It's an allowance that was made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by the copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Your videos are made for entertainment purposes, and are transformative in nature. If it wasn't for the "fair use" act most of the videos on TH-cam would have to be taken down. I don't see why fair use wouldn't apply to you. There are several channels that review old movies and TV shows. They show clips all the time without having to pay because of fair use.
Ah, the Bolo. Just a request, but can you do Douglas' upgraded Bolo; the B-23 Dragon? From my perspective, it looks like a budget B-17.
I'd suppose that the Bolo influenced the design of the DC -3.
@@Jonathan.D I have tried, but many of the clips are already on youtube, usually uploaded by British Pathe or Periscope films, and so when I try to use them it gets picked up by the system :(
Sometimes I get lucky, like with this video, the clip at the beginning cost me nothing, but other times its expensive lol.
The crash of the B-17 prototype was the reason that checklists were introduced. (The crew had omitted to disengage an internal rudder lock.) Aircraft had become too complex for memory-based procedures that were perfectly adequate for the simpler light machines of the time.
That I did not know. A person can learn a lot by reading the comments. Thank you
Thank you!👍
Did not know that, a positive outcome that has no doubt saved thousands of lives over the years.
a little more important than... how could you forget the milk...??
B-17 pre-flight check list scene from Memphis Belle:
My Dad's old business partner was a flying sergeant in WWII who flew a 75mm equipped B-25J. He said the recoil made you think the plane had stopped momentarily in the air.
I believe the aircraft you're referring to is the PBJ-1H, which was an attacker variant of the B-25.
@@uberschnilthegreat22 The USAAF had them as well, which is the version he flew.
The US did not have flying sergeants. He likely flew ON a B-25, possibly loading that 75mm cannon. Either that, or he was a defensive gunner. Pilots, Navigators, and Bombardiers were ALWAYS officers on US aircraft.
@@skipdreadman8765 On paper yes, reality is a bit more adaptable than you and so Ad hoc solutions happens sometimes.
@@skipdreadman8765 but we had sergeants that flew
In system engineering, they teach to prioritize a system that cost effectively meets the threshold (minimum) requirements over an expensive system that exceeds the objective requirements. I shall use this video as a counterpoint to that philosophy.
Prioritizing cost over objective requirements comes from the school of the bottom line. Such thinking is self defeating and foolish in the long term.
@@mkendallpk4321 sometimes. Sometimes the bottom line is fine. For example, when looking at cow patty brands you don't need one that uses only cow pats from specially fed, raised, and prepared cows. You just need cow shit, no bells and whistles. It's all situational.
At the end of the day one can only make a truly informed decision by considering the total context. Sometimes the bottom line is really the most important, but it is never the only thing. It is only when you evaluate the whole environment you're going to be using something in that you can make a good decision. Purely bean-counting is by definition tunnel vision
When I took system engineering it’s also said that if technological advancement threatens to make the product obsolete in the projected lifespan, the added cost of said obsolescence to upgrade/develop to meet the new threshold or revenue lost should be accounted for. Which I think works in this case
Failure to future proof is a common theme when establishing specifications or minimum requirements. That is my PoV anyway, based on 35+ years experience as engineer and technical manager in systems/electronic industry. It is sometimes hard to strike the right balance though. What is harder to understand is the US not changing tack after seeing events in Spain then Europe from 1936 onwards...
The B-18 has such an amazing 1930s aesthetic. That beautiful cockpit (2nd design) and nose glass almost looks like it belongs on a luxury airship.
It's probably better in that role then.
@@thebighurt2495 It was a fine medium bomber. Other nations certainly went to war with worse at the start of the conflict.
Think you might mean aesthetic, but otherwise I would agree.
@@kyle857 not all, the netherlands had the Fokker T.V that shot down heinkel He-111’s while it was a bomber
@@DraftySatyr What can I say, smart phone keyboards are a bitch when you are a giant.
As a former researcher, I really admire the in-depth nature of the excellent research in every video.
There is always interesting information, presented with a wry sense of humor. Very well done, indeed!
I love this channel, it’s like a cross between Drach and Greg’s Airplanes & Automobiles. 🤣
Now that's a compliment!
Stop making me blush
He is the Drach of the Skies! On the opposite side of the world, admittedly.
Would love to see a collab at some point between these two.
@@guyk2260 What makes you say that?
The Douglas B-23 Dragon next please - the B-18 Bolo successor - a beautiful design (though terrible for it's original concept) that survives in surprising numbers considering only 38 built (and used as executive transports for years)
Would you believe the B-23 was briefly considered for the Doolittle raid on Tokyo? Thankfully the B-25 was a such a superior combat a/c that there was never any serious competition!
I always liked the B-18 mainly because it was named 'Bolo'. Don't ask me why but I always get a chuckle out of that name. And it looks goofy enough for my odd tastes.
Oh and I forgot I also really liked the nose guns ball shaped glass mount. This looks kind of advanced for the pre-war era.
That nose shape turned out quite beneficial when B-18 were used in antisubmarine warfare.
I agree that the b-18 wasn't a great bomber due to a lot of things such as poor timing. However, one must yet again admit the rugged dependability of Douglas DC airframes. While we all know of the DC-3's storied career that continues on to this day, with dozens if not hundreds still in service, the B-18 was based on the earlier DC-2, and during the war went from bomber, to anti-sub, to transport and trainer. Always working away in some capacity. After the war, some being sold for civil transport, cargo, air spray, and firefighting duties, many flying on into the 60's and beyond. Douglas knew how to build a useful aircraft, even if the B-18 didn't fulfill its intended bomber role so well.
In fact the Airbus B-380 will soon enter service.
There's a company in the US extending and reinforcing C-47/DC-3 airframes, installing modern electronics, fitting them with turboprop engines, and selling them as gunships. Sometimes a thing is just made so "right" that it refuses to die.
While it was passed over for bomber the B-18 was superbly suitable for anti-submarine work as accounted in book The Douglas B-18 and B-23: America's Forsaken Warriors by Dan Hagedorn Sr. and Dan Hagedorn Jr.
@@itsapittie Basler in WI. I believe they only do the refurbishment and turboprop conversion. The "gunship" portion likely happens in whatever strange country employs them
@@johnwkindig1613 That may be right. Regardless, I can think of several things a smaller country might use such a conversion for besides gunships. Such a stable platform should make a good medevac or refueling aircraft, for example.
The Bolo on display at Wright Patterson is beyond exquisite.
Just G L E A M I N G
@@echodelta2172 / How dare they decry the performance of that pretty bird! I WANT one!!
You have great diction and a very clear narrative voice. No b.g.m. makes it easy to hear every word. Congratulations for a job well done.
good point 🎯
My grandmother’s cousin flew B18’s before the war with the 88th recon squadron, and then the group transitioned to B17’s. He was actually at Hickam on Dec 7th with a B24 spy plane. After Pearl Harbor he flew B17’s again for awhile before becoming a B29 bomb group commander.
Thanks!
While the B17 is legendary I had never heard of a B18 until recently, I think you mentioned it? Worth noting that a DC2 came second in the MacRobertson Air Race, England to Australia, behind a DH Comet. Of course the later military DC3 is another legend along with the B17.
Was the Dutch DC-2 named "Uiver". Uiver=storch.
@@SkinPeeleR
G'day,
Yes, indeed.
Uiver of the famous Car-Headlight lit night-landing at Albury...; a World First, at the time.
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
The Douglas equivalent of the B-18 Bolo using DC-3 parts instead of DC-2 parts was the B-23 Dragon.
The Dragon also fed back into the C-47 F with its tail design being used on the C-117.
@@allangibson2408 Yes, @SkinpeeleR the Uiver, lost in a storm and low on fuel, emergency landing at Albury.
@Allan Gibson, I am not aware of a B23, but know the DC3 variant, the Dakota/C-47.
@@stephenremington8448 You are probably also unaware that a DC-2 wing will fit on a DC-3… (The DC-2 has fewer bolts however they are at exactly the same locations as the DC-3 wing attachment bolts - look up the DC-2 1/2 for some fun)…
Would you consider doing a video on the Beechcraft 18? It was used to train the vast majority of USAAF navigators and bombardiers during WWII. The plane itself was in production for 33 years. (1937 to 1970) Which is an accomplishment in itself.
So glad you did this video - these flew out of the airbase (now airport) that’s just down from my house. I’d wondered what B-18s over Cape Cod might have been like, so thanks for putting this together!
It was one of those designs that looked good on paper but not in the real world.
So they tried to follow in Germany’s footsteps by taking an airliner and converting for military use.
Good video
Germany did modify their Ju-52 for use as a bomber and it was moderately successful in that role--but most of the early war German bombers were designed as a bomber and advertised as commercial aviation: mail planes, fast transports. Their reason for designing a bomber and then using it as a mail plane was to disguise producing war planes. The Ju-52 trimotor had performance similar to the DC-2 and Germany transport aircraft did include one other airliner that was converted to the bomber role--the Condor by Focke-Wulf. When used as a maritime bomber, the FW-200 had several shortcomings because it had originally been designed for economy and for transporting passengers in comfort. Giulio Douhet, Italy's air prophet, recommended designing civilian aviation so that its airliners could be reconfigured as bombers--but died in 1930 just as a giant leap forward in aviation technology occurred. Germany began secretly building the Luftwaffe after 25 February 1935, after Hitler signed the authorization. Design of the B-18 goes back to the end of 1934. Clever of those Americans--copying something that hadn't yet been developed--and developed in secret, too!
My father was a B-18B crew member and flew anti-sub missions out of Atlantic City, New Jersey. He liked the B-18, saying that due to its airliner roots, it was a fairly spacious and comfortable airplane.
congratulations on getting sponsored. your channel deserves it.
Fantastic stuff as always. And congrats on the sponsorship! First of many, I hope
B-18 Bolo: Sometimes, making a warplane out of an existing passenger airliner is a bad idea. (cheap cheep.)
I still think the Connie would have been an impressive bomber. People think of it as a post-war aircraft, but it was in operation as early as ‘43.
Lockheed built the Hudson from the Super Electra airliner, the Ventura from the Loadstar airliner.
The Bristol Blenheim bomber was built from the Bristol Britain First business aircraft.
The Bolo wasn’t the problem - the budget available was.
Even making an airliner out of a bomber is not such a good idea. Boeing built their prewar Stratoliner based on their B-17 and only ten were built. The postwar Boeing Stratocruiser was based on their B-29 Superfortress and really wasn't that successful with only about 55 built.
@@WAL_DC-6B The Boeing 377 was undermined by unreliable engines. They pretty much had an engine failure on every transatlantic flight, with the engine falling entirely off the aircraft on multiple occasions.
The essentially identical C-97 (Model 367) should also be included in the total (adding another 77 airframes with 888 total in all C-97 variants, mostly KC-97G air to air refueling tankers).
The military versions outnumbered the civilians ones 40 to 1 (with more Stratocruisers, Stratofreighters and Stratotankers built than 707’s).
The Germans did it and also suffered for it. Looking at you Condor.
Another great one mate, congratulations on getting sponsors.
A Brilliant exposition of the Douglas B18 BOLO in the context of the politics and actions of the immediate pre war era. [from Melb]
Bolo in the Philippines is curved one edged blade similar to a machete
Digbys serving with RCAF Eastern Air Command stationed in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland did fairly well in the anti-submarine role, sinking a number of German U-boats during the Battle of the Atlantic.
From my understanding, the crash of the B-17 meant that it was actually disqualified since the tests were incomplete, and it was the only prototype. However, the army air core, recognizing a winner when they saw one, obtained a few for... "testing"
Thanks Rex, very interesting and well delivered.
Just saw one of these at the Denver air and space museum didn’t know there were so few but pleased to see such an aircraft.
Please do a video of the Me-410 with special attention paid to how the rear gunner's sight worked and how
the gun's controls made the guns rotate and elevate, etc. Also the MANY armament variants including one with 6 20mm cannons paired with 4 13mm machine guns in the nose and pods. Incredible!
I have a book somewhere that has the variant pictures, but it's buried in one of my many boxes of books.
Another great video! Don't forget that Douglas didn't necessarily learn that lesson about civil aircraft being unsuited to be adapted into true combat aircraft; Case in point the Douglas B-23 Dragon. I'd love to see a video on that bird, the first time the DC-3 was given teeth, before the advent of the AC-47. XD
Interesting and informative as usual. Thankyou!
"no doubt involving some sort of kettle" finished me off for the day, brilliant, very funny.
This is the third video in a row of yours that I have watched, so I think you have earned my Sub!
Odd that America viewed bombers as to have little effect in war, yet across the pond the theme was ‘the bomber will always get through.’
Your assessment omits one fact.
Prior to 1940 The US military (Department of War and Navy Department)
had no money.
US Army was smaller than Brazil's. Army did have rifles for it's soldiers, very few armored forces and Air Corps that was ignored as a waste of resources.
The Navy had battleships of WW1 design. The USA was Non interventionist. The US had dozens of Aircraft companies in the infant airplane business.
Look to the treatment of General Mitchell to explain Airr Power attitudes.
Times were different
Regarding battleships specifically, everyone who had battleships at the time had them of WW1 design or earlier. The Washington Naval Treaty put a 10 year moratorium on new battleship construction that was renewed in 1930 with tbe London Naval Treaty, so no one on earth was starting new battleship construction until 1935 except the French and Italians, both of whom hadn't been able to previously afford to build up to their treaty-allowed tonnage. The US actually even had the problem of their ships being less modernized than the Royal Navy and Japanese Navy in 1941 specifically because the US Navy had put their battleships through an extensive modernization in the mid-late 1920s so in the early 30s they were actually the most modernized battle line of the 5 major naval powers, largely thanks to cannibalizing the materials that had been set aside to build new battleships canceled by the Washington Naval Treaty
Incorrect. By 1940 they did have money. It was an isolationist decision by FDR to ban purchases of all 4 engine bombers from 1938-39 which was a travesty in terms of how that decision prolonged WWII by at least 2 years. MacArthur and Frank Andrews led the campaign to develop the B-17 up through 1935.
I saw three different rear upper canopies. Are they different models? I didn't catch that in the video.
Enjoy your channel very much, have you ever thought about doing a cessna model? Perhaps the L19 bird dog or the a37 tweet. thanks again for such great content.
Amazing how the B17 prototype was less considered by the higher ups at the time, but the B17 proper is much better known historically.
MacArthur as Army Chief of Staff from 1930-35 endorsed the B-17 and 4 engine bombers. He was the one who picked Frank Andrews to do R&D for B-17s because he knew his successors and the War Department were anti 4 engine bombers.
The B18 Bolo reminds me of that line from "Smooth Jimmy" in The Simpsons:
Well when you're right 52% of the time, you're wrong 48% of the time!
Thank you for the detailed information n on a pretty much forgotten plane. I had forgotten that it was based on the DC 2. I think a number of B 18s were also destroyed at Clark Field when Japan attacked the Philippines.
On the submarine not credited as killed. There is a video (?mililitary history or drachinfel?) about some of the issue. In this case the sub has multiple fuel tanks. Crack some and you get an oil slick. That tank fills with sea water. Overall affect of weight on the sub not very much. It could, as in more than 0%, only lost range. The sub might have still been able to maneuver while chosing not to surface until hours later when the plane would have had to leave for its own fuel reasons. Confirming sub kills is a tricky business since sinking and coming back later "is its jam".
A DC-2 BOMBER configuration? Best that the Japanese got things before American crews flew in them.
Yay for the sponsorship!
The B-18 was a development of the DC-2 while the B-23 was a development of the DC-3. There were only a few dozen or so B-23's built I think and quite a sleek bird compared to the B-18. You can see both aircraft at the Pima Air Museum, Tucson AZ.
I love this museum! They do have an amazing collection of rare, hard to find aircraft. I go there at least once a year and spend the day closely examining aircraft. I figure in another 10 years I will get to them all.
Good afternoon Mr. Rex. Could you consider making a video with the De Havilland Dragon Fly? Is by far my favorite plane of the 1930’s . Thanks!
I love your channel man.
To be fair the B18 was a good 2 engine 1935 bomber. Just not the revolutionary design the 17 was...
Exactly so. We forget how rapid aircraft development was in that period. The XB-17 was not the aircraft that fought in WW2; a lot of improvements were yet to come. The design really didn’t become the offensive weapon we remember until the B-17E in late 1941…fully 6 years later.
Thank You.
What a graceful looking plane
It would also lead to the greatest US light/medium attack bomber - the DB-7/A-20 series. Those aircraft would more than make up for the folly of the B-18 & B-23.
0:55 Watching Dunkirk from "San Francisco" may give you away.
😃🤣😂
I was lucky enough to see a Bolo at an outdoor display on a Washington State military base. I had no idea it was so rare!
Juan Brown from the Blancolirio channel hiked to a Bolo bomber in California. He made a good video of it a couple of years ago. It is non-recoverable from what I saw, but it is mostly intact.
Can't find it quickly.... :(
There's something surreal about that mass formation of B-18s at 11:25.
Sadly, I have never heard about the "B-18" Aircraft Bomber...
But the B-17 was VERY STRONGLY modeled/designed after the B-10.
So glad to see (watch videos) about the multiple variations of aircraft that where used in WWII!
-Thank you,
Thomas
Port Orchard, Washington State USA
I saw the video on the B-10 and wondered if this was coming soon, I guess it was.
Thanks for another interesting video
Great job rex!👍
I tell people that weapon procurement is 90% political, 9% logistics and only 1% performance. This video reinforces my conceit. One of the reasons that many opposed the B-17 is that the Boeing Flying Fortress had too much performance--and the political reason for opposing the development and procurement of the strategic bomber is that planes such as the B-17 were useful in wars of aggression--the B-18 less so, while having all the performance required for a defensive war.
One of the Pearl Harbor stories was a squadron of B-17 bombers was destroyed as it came in for landing at Hickam Field on Oahu. The largest concentration of B-17 bombers was Clark Field in the Philippines and their target was Formosa (present-day Taiwan), Japanese territory. B-17 bombers had the range and could carry at least a ton of bombs (perhaps two tons) that far--the B-18 without bombs had trouble flying that far.
As for the coastal defense role, your video mentioned testing 75mm cannon on the B-18. Level bombing from high altitude (out of range of light anti-aircraft guns such as Japan's 25mm) proved ineffective on moving ships (the same complaint the Navy had when Billy Mitchell sank two surplus battleships in 1923--high altitude level bombing did work against ships at anchor or tied up to docks) and the heaviest artillery piece possible was fitted experimentally to test the concept. The B-25 Mitchell had some success with the 75mm, but the "heavy" aircraft cannon was replaced by salvos of heavy rockets and by guided bombs at the end of the war.
The B-18 was selected over the B-17 primarily for political reasons and Major Hill crashing the Boeing Model 299 (B-17 prototype) was just an excuse. The high-performance B-17 was a weapon of offensive warfare. The B-18 was regarded as a defensive weapon.
Douglas made the A20 Havoc soon after this, so they redeemed themselves.
My father flew B-18B anti-sub patrol for about a year. He talked about them being belonging in a scrap yard. Engine pumping so much oil that on take off they would pull change spark plugs at end of runway to get enough power to take off. Got caught in storm cloud and stretched the 300 bolts attaching outer wings by a turn or so.Was friendly fire target several times.
During various hearings the head of the army air force in Hawaii claimed the the B18 was unsuited for the recon role or the anti submarine role purposely understating its range and claimed the windows were in the wrong place. He also forbade training flights beyond visual range of Oahu. This video puts these claims false. What the commander was really doing was trying to justify why all his planes were caught on the ground. Flight logs show that the B18s hardly flew. I suspect if he had all the B17s he said he needed (180 as I recall) they would have been caught on the ground as well.
The transition from peacetime commanders too aggressive wartime commanders started after December 7th. For the first year it was trial and error at finding the right men. Those relieved typically went to stateside assignments.
@@Idahoguy10157 agree in part. the Army command in Hawaii was grossly negligent in terms of using the assets provided for their intended purpose. Admiral Kimmel on the other hand was out generaled by allowing his fleet to be bottled up and destroyed.
@@Freedomfred939 …. Kimmel and Short took all the blame for Dec 7th. How deficient were they? Compared to Washington…. I’m somewhat familiar with Kimmel. I think he was blamed more than he deserved.
@@Idahoguy10157 Short was given the 80 of best fighters, 90 of the latest antiaircraft guns and 6 radar sets along with trained radar interception unit failed to employ any of them. He owns the largest share of the disaster. He also ordered the Army to stand down the 6 and 7th of December.
@@Idahoguy10157 The general staff was mostly made up of junior WW1 officers who never went overseas and instead learned the peacetime military game: _politics._ Some learned what it took to fight. A lot never did.
The Japanese did the US a big favor when they destroyed most of their B18’s.
And the old battleships…
Imagine those plow horses out at sea , a la the Repulse and Prince of Wales.
However they’d have air cover.
Lots of Buffaloes to shield them from attack.
Ugh.
Good vid.
History made entertaining , thank you .
Thank you
Interesting! A little known bomber from early in the war. Did you do a video on the Douglas B-19?
13:11
The first two aircraft came in April 1942, 4 months before Brazil’s entrance in WW2, those being used first for training the new pilots in the new aircraft they were receiving, and then transferred to active duty on the “front”.
The third unit came in 1944, it was destined for the Aviation Technical School, it seems that It never flew actually.
A fourth unit was going to be delivered in 1945, but it crashed on February 18th, in the city of San Jose in Guatemala, during it's ferry flight
About those two, they were numbered “FAB 6300” and “FAB 7032”.
The one who took part on the attack was the 6300.
The U-boat in question was U-154, she was trying to attack the Belgian tanker “SS Motorcarline”, the B-18 prevented her to do so, and escorted Motorcarline back to port.
U-154 wasn’t sunk, she was probably damaged, because she continue to terrorize the shipping around these parts.
Almost a month after that, in June 3rd, she tried to attack convoy BT-12, escorted by cruiser Bahia and corvette Camaquã of the Brazilian Navy.
Camaquã detected U-154 first and both ships made a depth charge barrage but she managed to escape again.
The Colombian destroyer “Caldas” also attacked U-154 in the night of March 29, 1944.
Caldas managed to land two 120mm hits on her, and also depth charged it after U-154 dived.
But again, U-154 managed to survive.
She only meet her end in July 3rd, in the North Atlantic north-west of Madeira, Portugal. Sunk by destroyer escorts USS Inch and USS Frost
A caricatured B-18 appears in the Bugs Bunny cartoon titled, "Falling Hare." The 'toon features a cute but destructive gremlin: one of only two characters who ever messed with Bugs and got away with it
13:18, looking very similar to a Vickers Wellington in that profile.
Isn't this the Bugs Bunny bomber from all of those cartoons???
A fine example of "penny wise & pound foolish".
Haha, "Some sort off Kettle", Brilliant.
Excellent stuff!
Haha! The war thunder flying mail truck! :D
10:03 there is mistake in range. 900 miles is more like 1500 km not 3400. or was range 1900 miles?
I have long hungered for a book of every B1 - B?? aircraft. Also every P-1 to P-??, F's, A's etc.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the B-23 Dragon in this as it was an attempt to "modernize" the Bolo and put it at least on par with other contemporary medium bomber aircraft of the time. I believe the last 30 or so B-18's that Douglas was contracted to deliver were actually delivered as B-23's.
While I'm not one who likes watching ads I will compliment about sponsor spot in this video. I enjoyed was actually scripted instead of just a canned ad thing made by the company the ad is about.
Rex, great channel, I'm a happy subscriber. I wanted to note your SurfShark promo, nicely integrated and written into your content (you didn't sound like you were reading someone else's copy). I'm not in the market for a VPN, I would look at SS if I were, simply for their relationship to your channel and support of quality content like yours. Cheers! 👏👍🖖
The commissions statement (at 2:33) does not seem to have been heeded as wrong by the British MoD when they published their defense white paper in 1957. A document that all but destroyed the British aviation industry. What is it they say about those not learning from history?
The B18/23 bombers served in the RCAF on maritime patrol on both coasts. They gave German u boats headaches in the approaches to Canada's East coast
That opening shot of a bunch of B-18s flying past what I believe is Mount Rainier leads me to wonder what Douglas is doing in Boeing's territory! Perhaps they were stationed at Boeing Field or McCord Air Base, Or did Boeing also build them under contract? (I haven't watched the rest of the video yet).
Thank you! I had been entirely unaware of this bomber until I encountered it in War Thunder.
It looks like the equivalent of a chubby, unathletic tween that eventually grew up to be a beefy B-24 or something.
Great work Sir thank you
One can look at this way. By accepting the cheaper B-18 Bolo the USAAC at least had a sizable bomber fleet (and one cheap enough to be expandable), giving Boeing even more time to continue improving what would become the legendary B-17. Had the US mainland, for some strange Ahistorical reason, been invaded in the late 30's, the B-18 would have actually been a decent bomber of the defense for the day. Not great, but pretty good. It's sheer numbers would have made up for some of it's shortcomings if fighting on home soil.
The B-18 was a good stop-gap measure in the 30's that proved to be versatile in many support roles later on in life. One shouldn't be too hard on the B-18 or the USAAC at the time. While the B-17 at the testing was superior in power, capacity, range and speed, (accident aside) it did not perform as well as should and did expose many teething problems that still needed to be worked out, while the Air Corps needed a bomber now, and they needed it cheaply. The B-18, being built from already known and proven technology was ready to go right out of the box, while the B-17 with several new innovations, just needed some more time in the oven before going prime time.
> the B-17 with several new innovations, just needed some more time in the oven before going prime time.
too true. when the RAF took most of the B-17C procurement via Lend-Lease, they thought the new superbomber would be the very thing to give Hitler hell in high-altitude night raids. how wrong they were.
this was when the subtle instability of the "shark fin" airframe was made plain - resulting in hopelessly inaccurate bombing and debilitating airsickness among the crews. in addition, the RAF flew the '17s so high up that both planes and crew suffered seriously from the cold.
the lessons learned resulted in entirely new B-17s - models E, F and G. these were the bombers that helped devastate Fortress Europe in the hands of the 8th AF.
@@RatPfink66 would the B-18 still be useful in it's intended role, with the risk and danger added to it?
@@merafirewing6591 it would depend where it was being used, and what risks and dangers it faced.
Good luck to tail en Charlie with no tailgunner. Knowing the damage on US bombers over Europe this would not have lasted long, And DC-2/3 is a barge even with both engines. Very few from a formation would have been able to return from a bombing mission over Germany.
The B-17 did not have a tail gunner position until the E variant. If you watch the WWII propaganda movie "Air Force" it showed how they had the pilot yaw the plane so the waist gunners could shoot to the rear. The Paul Muni character came up with the idea of sawing off the end of the tail and mounting a M1919 machine gun there. He fired it while lying prone in the rear of the ship.
Eh, the gunner positions were dubiously useful anyway. Blocks of bombers throwing tons of lead at interceptors did next to nothing, which is why day light raids without air superiority or fighter escort were ended.
@@jeffstrom164 I have a friend who actually talked to a German ex-fighter pilot. According to him, attacking a B-17 formation (even without fighter escort) was like trying to beat a porcupine to death with a stick. Sure, it's *doable,* but the fighters would get shredded in the process doing it. The only way they could effectively destroy a bomber formation was to break it up with Flak AA ground support, then defeat in detail. A fighter escort did not "save" the B-17 formations, it reduced their casualties. Well-armed strategic bombers* are a menace to a fighters, unless attacked en masse and no, they never ended "Daylight raids with escort." The 8th Air Force did their missions, come hell or high water, escort or no escort. Their casualty lists were tremendous for a reason.
*Ones with good cover like a B-17 or Lancaster.
@@thebighurt2495 1. I didn't say they ended escorted day raids, I said they ended non escorted day raids. 2. The 17s that flew unescorted suffered horrendous casualties from interceptors like 109s and 190s. Our boys were brave, but they didn't shoot down squat on thier own. The death toll was around three 17s shot down for each fighter downed by a 17. In one engagement we lost 47 b17s to thier 13 bf109s. That's 470 of us dead to 13 of them. They carved us up resulting in changes to tactics and equipment.
@@jeffstrom164 The armament of bombers did at least something, All i am saying is that the Bolo had very little something and would be absolutely unsuited for the job. There was just not enough weapons and durability when it comes to the Bolo.
Hey what about the caproni the Heinkel 111 the Blenheim Al developed from civil aircraft
I'm not sure why the fact that General Billy Mitchell's sinking of the Ostfreisland, in 1921, as proof of the capability to airpower is omitted. The argument wasn't whether airpower, specifically bombers, was irrelevant, but what degree it would be used to fight wars. Most saw aircraft, especially the bomber, as a Tactical weapon rather than a Strategic Weapon, and which service would have the greatest need for aircraft. The idea that Airpower was ineffectual on effecting the outcome of wars was largely over by the mid 1930's
Not in the War Department and U.S. govt from 1936 to 1939. It was isolationism which led to the banning of R&D and purchase of B-17s. Malin Craig said B-17s were too offensive and "threatening" to Japan and Germany so B-18s were the main bomber of the USAAC/USAAF up through December 1941.
Thank you.
Fascinating!
Its brother, the DC3, created modern air travel. It served as a fantastic troop transport and went on to become the first airliner deemed safe enough that one could procure insurance.
Good vid as usual
In the end, it ended up being a surprisingly successful aircraft despite being rendered obsolete for its designed use early in the war. Still reliable, relatively cheap compared to the newer four-engined bombers, and capable in the absence of enemy fighters, it did make a capable anti-submarine and training aircraft, which is better than a lot of aircraft of its era rendered obsolete.
Being playing in my head how I would help arm Canada starting in 1935 with reasonable sized pot of magic money, a small order of Anson and the B18 were my choice, considering the size of the RCAF at the time and trying to convince them to use the B18's for coastal patrol, which I suspect would meet some resistance within the RCAF, as there were pushing hard to be more of frontline combat force. Having 12 of these fitted for coastal patrol at the beginning of WWII would have been helpful to cover the approaches to the East Coast and Newfoundland.
I’d love to see a video on the XB19
So, an unspectacular aircraft that had some uses but was not as good as the direct competition?
Yeah.
Its not rare to get a big oil slick but not kill the Uboat (tanks are normally external to the pressure hull, under what is only a hydrodynamic cover), and a great many Uboats returned to port with heavy damage but where not total losses. Hence confirmation requires a lot more than oil or small debris.
That is one ungainly beast! Very interesting video though.
You really dropped the ball on this one. Boeing's Model 299 was disqualified because it hadn't completed all the tests at the time of the crash, which made it ineligible. That's the primary reason the Bolo won the competition, although the price difference didn't help.
Also the Army was subject to a ridiculously tiny budget from Congress. They did the best they could at the time. There was honest debate at the time whether the country _needed_ an "offensive" bomber. The B-18 was deemed sufficient to reinforce Hawaii, the Canal Zone, and Alaska, which was the official requirement.
Also also, in 1935 Hitler was still just an objectionable gangster; increased armaments were deemed unnecessary, especially in light of the (probably apocryphal) stories of "war profiteers" of WW1.