The Lancaster and Atomic Bombs, My Response to Mark Felton
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 มี.ค. 2022
- Could the Lancaster have flown the Atomic bombing missions from Tinian as claimed by Mark Felton Productions? Is there any evidence for a secret squadron of Black Lancasters that had specially trained crews to fly these missions? Let's look into these big claims and see if they hold up.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplanesandautomobiles...
Please support this channel:
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
![[SUB] 베몬이 교관님 멘탈을 탕탕 후루후루~٩(๑❛ᴗ❛๑)۶ FOREVER 웃게 되는 갓기들의 수련회 | 돌들의침묵 | BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) 'FOREVER'](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FISAO7BwIxE/mqdefault.jpg)
Ahhh yes, it's "super secret" also known as the Pierre Sprey gambit.
"I totally designed the A10 and the F15, but my name isn't on any documentation because it's classified which is why I'm telling you about it."
My name was erased from the SEAL team list for this very reason.
@@twentyrothmans7308
That's hilarious. Thanks!
@@twentyrothmans7308 amazing how many Seals / Deltas that you come across on YT
@@ivanthemadvandal8435 I've had people tell me that they were Navy Nukes, not knowing that I was one.
@@ivanthemadvandal8435
I was with Delta Force but they banned me from Fox News, so I just spread truth on YT.
I'm a huge Lancaster fan , and have read countless books on the subject. When I saw Mark Felton's video on this subject , I was disappointed as I knew this was complete nonsense. I even called him out on his comments to ask him to provide his sources . No answer.... I once was a fan of his videos , but after that one ,I avoid his products . I no longer have any faith in his stories
I'm surprised. He can get quite nasty when called out on something.
I agree with you, i am a huge Lancaster fan but this MFP video is like a couple of others of his, just sheer sensationalist fantasy.
Interesting. I just watched his Finnish-Soviet War video and quite a few commenters raised errors, something I haven't seen very often. I too raised concerns with a video on the Pacific War by posting a comment and he did not reply, despite my comment being respectful, considered and measured.
@@ericadams3428
I've noticed this rather soon in his content, if it wasn't simply trying to ride coattails of trendy subjects/channels
Needless to say: I quit watching his channel pretty quickly
@@montecarlo1651 Same here, his video on the IJN submarine campaign on the east coast of Australia was utterly woeful, despite providing polite corrections and exhaustive directions to first person source materials, no reply was received, nor and of far greater importance, were any corrections ever made to his wholesale distortions and omission of many well-known historic facts. The inherent disrespect for and outright erasure of the sacrifices of the fallen which this type of historic stewardship, that shamelessly and solely prioritises individual pecuniary interests, is an outrageous disgrace and its insult indeed only compounded by his fawning and patently false claims to the contrary. Felton likes history, but the ruthless inflation of his own personal ego is of far greater priority to himself regardless of the memory of other's ancestors.
20:00 Remember: the atomic bomb had a barometric fuse that would cause the bomb to detonate at a predetermined height. You HAD to DISARM the bomb before LANDING, or you would vaporize a chunk of Tinian and probably kill most everyone on the island!
Excellent point General.
Did it really have no means of final arming on release? I'm no engineer, but I'd've thought that it would have something like a lanyard attached to the plane to stop it from detonating while still attached.
I support purity of essence.
@@Delta_Hotel From the archive footage I've seen and the data on the bomb I've observed, no.
It could only be armed in person, and disarmed in person.
@@Delta_Hotel My specific reference if not clear was to the use of the Lancaster.
With no way to access the bomb bay, the only way to arm the bomb would be to activate a time delayed barometric fuse. Then the only way to go back to base in the event of an aborted mission would be to throw the bomb into the ocean.
So yes, completely impractical.
As a former member of the Royal Air Force I am pleased to find your clear and accurate video relating to the facts rather than numerous dubious speculations offered by a certain other You Tube content provider. Many many years ago I was privileged to actual work on and within the last UK based Lancaster - then known as "The City of Lincoln" and it was/is a truly great aircraft based on its achievements within the roles which it undertook. When I recently came across the claim about it being not just capable but also "standing by and ready" to carry out the B-29 Atomic bomb missions I was bemused if not totally amazed that anyone could believe it to have a shred of reality. Your video very eloquently addresses those claims and debunks them by actually providing evidence to support your logic and reasons - Thank you
Felton has sucked people into his channel through sensationalised videos about weird Nazi stuff, be it the technology or weird occult things they got up to. So once people started salivating at that, their critical thinking processes shut down.
Are you saying the Lincoln could NOT have achieved it You do know the RAF had bases in Iraq Pakistan India, Malaya Borneo and Hong Kong Not one plane touching US territory Unlikely granted impossible NO
I wrote my Ph.D Thesis about the politics of British Strategic bombing in WWII. I spent a great deal of time in the Public Records Office (UK National Archives).
There was absolutely nothing there about this mythical Lancaster force. Yes I did look at Tiger Force too. Oh, I did read the files that mentioned Leonard Cheshire's participation as an official observer
I have occasionally pointed out factual errors on his video's comments. He has never replied, nor added any correction.
Good job here though.
Thank you
Not surprising that he hasn't responded. Felton often has glaring issues with his videos that even casual history fans can spot from a mile away, I've also seen comments online about how a lot of his work is copied off places like Wikipedia or plagiarized from others.
Is your PhD publicly available online? :)
@@MrNicoJac It was lodge with my University, but this was 25 years ago, so I doubt that they have put it there (I certainly can't find it)
Just because you did actual research and earned a PhD on the topic doesn't mean you know more than a youtube video.
Welcome to the 21st Century....
@@Waltham1892 Congratulations on not knowing a damn thing about what you are talking about.
.
As a Brit I naturally love the Lancaster but there is no doubting the B29 was a new generation of bomber and I just cannot see how the Lanc would have the range, speed and capacity to carry out the atomic attacks.
Exactly and well stated. It's not a Brit vs Yank thing.
Canadian here. 30 years in the RCAF. I,ve seen both in real life. The Lanc was great, but the B-29 was head and shoulder above the rest. Pressurized, huge bomb load, long range, capable of 30000 feet. Teething problem, sure. The end of the piston era, yes.
What strikes me as odd is Felton’s videos are normally fairly free of national biases. I can only assume his motivations with the video were solely financial.
@@RealmCenter40 I might have caught a couple bad ones but I sensed bias. OK, national pride is one thing but he had many facts wrong as well. That's why I stopped watching his channel.
@@PappyGunn you got it. Unless I'm mistaken, the Lanc was basically a development of an early/mid 30's plane in design. The 29 was a completely new aircraft to be built as state of the art (and in a few years yet). No wonder it had some teething problems and, IIRC, was the most expensive single project of WWII. The Lanc was a great plane for what it was., without doubt, but is wasn't state of the art by mid/late war. It's not even fair to try and compare the two.
An old Englishman is in absolute agreement . the pace of development in THE war was staggering , the B29 is in a different league to the older Lancaster .
No kidding. There's no need for embellishment of history. When the Lancaster was new, it was significant. Its peak years were significant. But the thing was obsolete by the end of the war, as were the vast majority of planes in the air in 1939-1943. The B-29 was on another level. There's no reason to even consider a Lancaster by comparison, and factual recorded history shows they didn't. I really like MF's channel, but this claim was a mark against him.
@@merlball8520 entirely agree
@@merlball8520 Thats FAR TOO obvious for these idiots to understand. AND---the B.29 ( was a step too far too soon). It wasn't designed to Carry singular Huge Bombes, but mass carpet bombings as seen many times during the war on Japan. The Atom Bomb wasn't even created when the B29 was conceived. It was all those alterations (and Engine failures) that created the late problem. This is all in history, go look for it.
Not to mention the B-32 Dominator was waiting in the wings, in case the 29 was a failure.
Development & production of the B29 run into trouble and this was considered as a back up and no more the Lancaster's bomb bay was the only other suitable bomber to deliver this payload.@@merlball8520
I happened to come across MFP's video on "black Lancasters" a few days ago and I just now finished watching your own "rebuttal" video of MFP's contentions. I've always appreciated the depth of your research, your personal technical savvy, and-last but not least-your calm, no-frills style. I believe your video is a valuable contribution to the historical record. I also think MFP's one was an ill-conceived work of fiction that he concocted while he was having a jingoistic day, wearing a Churchill peacoat and playing "Rule Britannia" real loud on his stereo.
Thanks teerex, that description was pretty funny.
Im here from a comment someone left on that video, any more examples of his inaccuracies? If so I'm done watching him
@@Captain_Willard Well, to start with you don't need theme music if you're doing a serious analysis.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles and ludicrously infantile.
I normally have regard for MFP, but not this time. There was NEVER anything I have seen that suggests a `Lancaster` stand-in. The Lancaster had the lifting capability, but not the range nor the altitude capability. If this is true then MFP should produce the documents.
If not. take the video DOWN. Mark Felton, you produced a lemon. Make lemonade or an apology....
MFP relies on Brandolini’s Law, i.e. "the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it".
I have never hear that law, but wow, it's a true statement.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles So... Greg, don't give yourself too much credit please. Mark Felton is an idiot.
That was as thorough and meticulous a dismantling of an argument as I've ever seen.
A " good spanking " is the term i prefer !! 😊
👍
The MFP video is quite embarrassing . Historians should deal in facts and quote sources, that video was lacking in both.
@@ericadams3428 Its unfortunate because i used to like that channel. I could forgive some minor inaccuracy if it was committed unintentionally but that video was way over the line.
@@ericadams3428 Mr. Felton must of have had a bit too much to drink after the Liverpool football game that day!!
I fear that for volume of content and sensational headlines the level of historical accuracy is becoming strained in some quarters - to the extent I find myself grinding my teeth in exasperation as I know they could do so much better! Thank you Greg for keeping the faith - you may not get as many views as a result - but you are so greatly appreciated!!
This wasn't the worst Mark Felton has claimed. He tends to get things wrong often. But the worst thing is that he plagiarizes his content. He a shameless thief.
Well, I'll put it more bluntly. His channel exists only to enrich his wallet and his ego. As a source of educational content, it has zero credibility.
He's a businessman, not an historian.
@@leoarc1061 So a doctorate in history and authoring 20 books means what?
@@kelvinh8327 I guess that means 21 grains of salt.
@@kelvinh8327 Many doctors in many fields have lost their doctorates over the years.
Do you know why? Because ethics mean more than any book or any piece of paper.
Yes, ethics do matter, even in 2022.
You can hear in his voice that the misconceptions of Mark Felton and others annoy him.
It's good that he's clearing those misconceptions.
I find I'm a bit annoyed myself. Honest mistakes are one thing and even the best historians make them. Considering the quantity and magnitude of mistakes in the Felton vid, I don't think they qualify has honest.
@@rrice1705 👍
They are totally DISHONEST. AND totally DECEPTIVE. Thank you Greg for exposing Felton and those who drank his Koolaid.
I quite enjoy the approach you've taken in this video.
You've shot the horse, then you've gone and repeatedly beaten the dead horse over and over again so it doesn't even look like a horse anymore.
"But why beat a dead horse?...I mean other than for the pure joy of it!" -Hunter S. Thomson
@@gumbykevbo to keep the other horses in line
or braying Jack Asses
In newspapering, we would call your report a knockdown story, ie, a factual story that refutes a previous ill-sourced story by a competitor. Yours is a paragon of the genre, per video. Well done!
" I call the Bullshit. "
@@danweyant707 Mr Felton snapped the needle red-lining the analog bullshit meter
there is a 2nd hand retelling, about a Lancaster study positing a 10-ton bomb, as Reply to top Comment
Watch 15.28 of marks video - he clearly states it was a “what if” - not reality - get a life
Watch the whole video it is certainly misleading in fact it heads of in a fraudulent direction hence this dissertation
My dad retired from the Air Force from the 55th Wing at Offutt AFB back in 1997. As a retirement gift he received a piece of the wooden block flooring used in the factory that built the Silverplate bombers. They had turned the factory into a large MWR facility and had removed the old flooring.
I finished my MA in history with a capstone essay on the Granville Raid in 45’. I examined it’s causality which entailed a great deal of research from first hand accounts on the Channel Islands to official reports from ULTRA and the American National Archives. Mark Felton had done a video on the raid and ironically inspired me to research it for my capstone.
I was sort of ashamed to learn that plenty of inconsistencies are apparent in that video that he did, titled “Hitler’s Sea Wolves”. Some claims that he puts forward I found zero evidence for in either primary or secondary sources.
Being clear, I don’t expect absolute ironclad evidence for a TH-cam video, but if MF claims he is a historian, this showing doesn’t endear me to his “real” work. It is just entertainment though I suppose.
While I am not an expert on Lancasters, the Manhattan Project or the bomb, I am glad to see that some other experts are pointing out inconsistencies with his videos. Well done.
I think it runs far deeper than that and I don't believe that anyone, least of all someone who publicly attempts to afford himself accreditation as an expert by claiming to be a professional historian, has the right to take liberties with the stewardship of history in any regard, least of all for entertainment or even worse, for financial gain which is akin to grave-robbing in terms of such a subject as military history. I stated looking into him after viewing Felton's video on the IJN submarine campaign on the east coast of Australia, which was utterly woeful, despite providing polite corrections and exhaustive directions to first person source materials, no reply was received, nor and of far greater importance, were any corrections ever made to his wholesale distortions and omission of many well-known historic facts.
My enquiries showed that he indeed has a long history of inherent disrespect for and outright erasure of the sacrifices of the fallen which this type of historic stewardship, that shamelessly and solely prioritises individual pecuniary interests through lazy or non-existent research in preference for sensationalism results in. However, for him to persist in this manner after having the shortcomings of this conduct drawn to his attention elevates this to an outrageously disrespectful disgrace, and its insult is indeed only compounded by his fawning and patently false claims to the contrary. Felton likes history, but the ruthless inflation of his own personal ego is of far greater and in fact singular priority to himself regardless of and all-too-often at the sacrifice of the memory and accurate record of other people's ancestors.
I'm not an aviator or sailor but a humble soldier. All our tanks had either bright (almost neon-like) green or white paint on the inside of our tanks to assist with seeing inside a dark, buttoned up tank or operating at night. I think the white in the cockpit would reflect instead of absorbing solar heating, just like the difference between white concrete and black asphalt on a hot day. The tops of our tanks in Iraq would get so hot sitting in the sun. Sometimes we couldn't tactically get into shade and we'd need gloves to keep from burning our hands. Any bottles of water put in the roof would almost instantly be too hot to drink.
Greg is ceding the point about paint color because (I think) there are so many other problems with MFP as to be silly.
I have read that the A-12/SR-71 were painted black because black radiates heat better than other colors and friction buildup of heat was a very big issue with those planes.
Reading the comments it appears that MFP it’s as interested in factual accuracy or citing source material.
@@colinjohnson5515 Black doesn't radiate heat better. It does absorb radar signals better.
Thank you for posting this. That "other" video made me want to slam my head into a brick wall until I was taken by the warm embrace of a coma.
TH-cam might not be for you.
I share the sentiment but not the passion haha. I like Felton’s videos but this was him putting pride in an aircraft or perhaps country over facts. Great vids by the way.
Well said. Also, love your channel and content Rex!
Thanks Rex, I love your work.
Ditto to you! Greetings from the far side of the Pacific! :D
I like this format much better. No overly dramatic music or unnecessary melodramatics, just facts and visual proof as Greg speaks.
Great Job, Sir!
This is truly an excellent video!
One question arises for me, however: the stated 80 to 85% loss rate for Lancaster missions over Japan. To be clear: even when taking the lower 80% figure, that still means that 4 out of 5 aircraft will be lost PER RAID. That simply cannot be true. Even if every raid would be as devastating as, for example, the all-Lancaster Dresden bombing, it still means losing 640 out of 800 Lancasters that participated in the raid. And please keep in mind, by 1945 RAF Bomber Command could probably muster something in the region of 1000 operable Lancasters (again, I am not sure here, but the maximum effort Dresden raid with 800 Lancasters gives some perspective)
I see 2 possibilities here:
- the 80 to 85% loss rate refers to a crew's chance of completing their 30 mission tour, which would probably be roughly in line with a crew's survival chance over Germany in 1943 (loss rate somewhere around 3 to 5 percent would be my guess)
- or there was simply a mistake and 8 to 8,5 percent are meant, which would still be absolutely dreadful survival odds, see above.
Would be happy to hear your opinion.
I certainly don't think it's per mission, but the specifics are not stated.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Greg, this MFP video caused me to unsubscribe: th-cam.com/video/i5D50WWIZyg/w-d-xo.html
I am curious about this for the same reasons as you
The dresden raid was at night, early in the war the british tried daylight bombing with lancasters and suffered a 60% loss rate and that wasn't even a deep penetration. Thus the lancaster was relegated to night missions only in contested airspace
The one time lancasters tried daylight bombing in a contested area they suffered over a 60% loss rate from a single squadron of fighters.
The B-29 that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki (Bockscar) spent a bunch of time circling around waiting to meet up with the instrument and camera planes (some of which didn't make the rendezvous). It then headed to Kokura, it's primary target, and flew over the city three times looking for a break in the clouds. It then headed to it's secondary target, Nagasaki. When they got there, they started to worry about fuel... they actually had more than enough, it's just that there was a problem with the fuel pump in one of the tanks and they couldn't get it to turn on. Point being that the B-29 had some serious range.
@@dmunro9076 Absolutely right on. I served on Okinawa in the late 50s and early 60s as a Sea Bee. I visited the air base where Bock's car landed low on fuel. There was a plaque there.
@@dmunro9076 Yep. The fuel pump problem was detected in preflight but it was decided to continue rather than delay to fix or swap planes. There were a number of problems on that mission. Wouldn't have happened with Tibbets in charge...
Tough spot so disarm the bomb or not if the fuel pump goes bad? I'd leave it armed and go down with the plane based on how the Japanese treatment was of allied service men
@@danpatterson8009 Maybe, but they were all keyed up for this mission and they might have all made the same choices. The reality is that this history is already written and is what it was.
I was aware of part of that. Thanks for filling in the holes
That picture at 31:18 shows a Lanc the RAF developed with a gigantic saddle tank that ran the length of the top of the plane. This was done to give the plane the range to bomb Japan. The tank was so large that it completely changed the appearance of the plane and eliminated the dorsal turret. The weight of all that extra fuel also drastically reduced the bomb load. The design was completely mad and never got beyond the prototype.
Imagine it starts leaking.
Hope it was well baffled, 'trim-wheel-city' with that lot sloshing about up there . . . then there's hard braking : )
One unlucky shot from an arisaka and the crew risks being drowned! 🤣
@@berryreading4809 Or even a Nambu Type 94! LOL....
@@berryreading4809 🤣
You’ve done a wonderful service to history by addressing this so thoroughly.
Indeed I have. Thank-you
I’m British. Born in ‘72. My grandfather served in the RAF during WWII (an electrician on Beaufighters, mostly). I’m afraid the MFP story is very attractive to believers of our national myth. Furthermore, it is a legacy of a sentiment my mother’s generation had about brash, overconfident Americans, overloaded with cash, but short on ingenuity. That myth of ours consists of many threads: Barnes Wallis, the TSR-2, and the Vulcan. All things to be rightly proud of, but over-emphasised and given a significance way beyond their actual impact. I’m proud of my grandfather’s generation, but I can’t stand this insecurity we have as a nation. Anyhow, thanks for this video, your diligence, expertise, and humility! Oh, and that marvellous Beaufighter video (both the talk about the aircraft, and the trip to the kit manufacturer!).
I wouldn't say it's just a British mindset. I've spoken to enough people from all over to hear just how proud people are to talk about the heroes of their nation. I was speaking with some Poles the other week, and they talked how Rurik of Kievan Rus was afraid of going into Poland because of how mighty warriors they were. There's not even that concrete proof of Rurik actually existing, and what he thought. The word "Slave" comes from the word "Slav" after all the slave raids into slavic lands, so it's unlikely there was anything to be particularly scared of in war.
Every culture acts in a certain way due to it's history. Like with the example above, Eastern Europeans are naturally quite insular from all the constant conflict for millenia, but also desperate to prove themselves in prestige and fight for their national identity. Probably with British people it'll be the cultural belief in their superiority as the greatest empire and as a civilising force, with then rapid downfall after the Great war and being overtaken by the rest of the world. After being the best for probably two centuries, it's hard to admit that maybe others just ended up doing things better, that they aren't taking shortcuts. It's just how people work, always have, and always will do.
And yea, stories like MFP do are incredibly popular. I once thought reenactors know a lot about history, but they're passionate and do it for joy, not for actual study. Too many people like to hear a small little contrarian story because it's: interesting and it feels like you've unlocked a new secret about the world and everyone else is dumb.
but short on ingenuity LOLOLOLOL
Get back to me when you put a man in space let alone to the moon.
@@fawnlliebowitz1772 I think you misunderstood my post.
Could be if so my apologies. @@leobrancovich1743
And you are forgetting how generous we Brits are Leo, we gave the jet engines we developed to the US for their help in the war, but to be even handed we also sold some to the Soviets so that they could make the Mig 15, a formidable aeroplane.
I saw the Mark Felton Production, big fan of most of his work, and this one seemed "odd". I can see why the Lancaster early would have been considered due to its large bomb bay but it flew much lower than even the B-17 and was so slow actually dropping the atomic bomb would have been a suicide mission for the crew. The Enola Gay and Boxcar dropped from a high elevation, the bomb had a parachute to slow it (er, seems it didn't. OOPS!), and the B-29 top speed was what ever they did flying away. (did they have a nitro boost on them?) The blast still shook the planes. In this case Mr Felton's claim that mere pride required the use of an American plane is sad and discrediting of his other worthy work.
There's nothing like a bit of USA-Brit banter. Unless you're deluded, the B-29 was the girl for the job.
I doubt there'd have been any difficulty in recruiting aircrew for an extremely dangerous mission from either the USAAF or the RAF, though the latter must be been very fatigued by that point. The 1944/early 1945 raids over Germany weren't milk runs.
the bombs had no parachute, they where free falling
thats why the special escape maneuver was needed, and even then the shockwave shuck the plane quite a bit
I feel the need to mention my 98 year old, and still stunningly active, father is a USAAF veteran who trained for the B-29. He was support rather than flight and as a child I would read the B-29 maintenance manual he brought home.
"the bombs had no parachute, they where free falling"@@IronPhysik
Did some reading. I was wrong and have no idea where the parachute idea came from.
I don't know, I feel like this a good example of the flaws with his work. He often takes things that were considered or mentioned, even if only barely, and acts like it was some sort of fully planed or staffed operation that almost happened. Does it pretty often.
The Lancaster was a good aircraft, but saying it would be seriously considered as an atomic bomber is like saying the B-24 would be.
In principle one could try a mission with such a bomber, but the B29 is a generation beyond the Lancaster and it shows in performance.
The people in charge were too smart for this idea to be true.
When the RAF needed a nuclear capable bomber in the early 1950's they used B-29's, calling them "Washingtons".
@@fafner1 exactly just like the Russian did with their copied version of the B-29
I would say a modified B-24 was a better contender for dropping A-bombs then the Lancaster. I totally agree with your comment
It’s arguably two generations considering the Lanc was made to meet a pre-war spec from the air ministry for a heavy bomber. Which is remarkable considering what it did. The Lincoln should have been used like the Lancaster was, with the Lanc going the same way as Halifax and Stirling (transport, supply drops, airborne ops)
@@Bryan-cs9to would have been the B-32
Greg, I seriously love your monotonous, matter of fact delivery. Your research is thorough and impeccable. Keep up the great work!
BUT ONLY IF ---YOU--WANT IT TO BE.
This was extremely interesting. I remember watching the MFP video in question and finding it interesting as well. I much prefer knowing the truth however and you have very thoroughly investigated it and presented it, thank you!
7 years ago I would have donated large amounts. I look forward to all your work. I guess it's bad luck for us both. I'm living on the edge now so your work is on point, accurate ,and a joy to watch.
Thanks.
I hope things turn around for you Nick!
@@life_of_riley88
Thanks, I'm working on it. 🙏
I'm British and I've never heard of the Lancaster ever being considered in the nuclear role. I just don't think it happened. Tiger Force was something entirely different, and let's face it was envisaged before anybody even knew about the atom bomb. Before the atom bomb the war "might" have dragged on another year and Tiger Force "might" have had a conventional bombing role to play, but the two atom bombs rendered it superfluous overnight ( thank goodness). Where I might differ is that there definitely were plans to use Liberators in the air to air refueling role refueling Lancasters, but again, how far those plans had evolved into reality is anybodys guess. That Tiger Force was planned at all indicates that the range issues had been resolved one way or another. What would be the point if they hadn't ? Look up " Tiger Force " on Wikipedia. It is quite interesting. Personally I think Tiger Force would have been a disaster anyway as RAF aircrew were worn out by the European bombing campaign and our aircraft unsuitable for the most part to Far Eastern operations. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force_(air)
The B-29 was fitted with the Lancaster bomb suspension system used for the 20 ton Grand Slam bomb.
So a Lancaster could physically carry an atomic bomb.
The replacement to the Lancaster - the Lincoln - did drop nuclear weapons over Australia for testing.
Avro Lincoln’s were deployed to the Far East in August 1945.
@@allangibson2408 It's not the ability to carry that is in question. It's the complexity of the systems to support carrying a nuclear weapon that wartime Lancasters could not possibly have been adapted to in the time frame, certainly not in Tiger Force. Once you go testing in peacetime anything is possible, and they certainly didn't need long range to test nuclear bombs in Australia. Also you need to consider the secrecy surrounding "Manhattan". Nobody in the RAF knew anything but the sketchiest rumours of a super weapon.
@@timhancock6626 The early nuclear weapons were less complicated than the Grand Slams.
The suspension system was exactly the same.
And as I said - the LINCOLN would have been the obvious choice.
The only difficulty would be access to the bomb casing to insert the last of the fissile material (which would have required a hole in the bomb bay roof and a platform to stand on.
The operational difficulty with the Lancaster’s and Lincoln’s was that they were unpressurised making the required high altitude flying extremely uncomfortable. (That’s why the British bought the B-50).
So technically possible but politically improbable.
The RAAF operated modified Lincoln’s that operated at 45,000ft with the crew in full pressure suits to drop the test weapons in Australia. That was to gather ballistic data for the British V-bomber force. Six highly modified Lincoln’s didn’t have much value after this so they were scrapped in Australia.
@@allangibson2408 But that was years later so perfectly possible. In the wartime scenario it was not a starter unless the Americans asked us, and they didn't.
@@allangibson2408 interesting - on checking Jackson's Avro history (Putnam), it seems Lincoln service trials didn't start with 57 and 44 squadrons until September of 1945, and the first overseas mention I can find of Lincolns is only in October of 1946. Also, no atomic weapons were ever dropped from Avro Lincolns; the first British free fall weapon - Blue Danube in 1956 - being too heavy for anything except the Vickers Valiant.
Well done , great job clearing up this misconception of MFP. I can't believe he went there and in my opinion his credibility has suffered as a result of him doing so.
@ICE69ROG : Absolutely, his credibility has suffered. It was already half out the window as far as I am concerned.
@@quaver1239 Felton is a proven serial plagiarist, many of the 'scripts' of his videos are taken verbatim from and without any credit to the intellectual property of actual genuine historians, even more directly from Wikipedia which itself attests strongly to both their credibilty and political biases to say nothing of his own abject laziness. The sycophants who post the most nauseatingly slavish and servile tributes under his videos claiming that he is the pre-eminent expert on military history only reiterate the truth that the vast majority of the general public are themselves abject imbeciles coddled within a self-delusional fog of classic Dunning-Kruger effect.
What credibility? He's always been a spurious hack.
This confirms my long-standing suspicion that Felton's objectivity and trustworthiness are seriously compromised by his jingoism.
20:08 "Armed" doesn't even begin to describe the danger. While an implosion type bomb can be set on fire with no danger of a nuclear explosion, an armed gun type bomb will almost certainly undergo a full nuclear detonation if set on fire.
Felton,s channel is played out.. He is starting to struggle coming up with new episode material..He is pushing the envelope and reaching for provocative creative new insight
A good historian shows their sources.
I’ve got to say Greg is extremely good at exposing the flaws in some of my favourite historic aircraft. And to be honest although it’s disappointing to realise I held views which were not well supported by the facts, it’s better realise I was in error and move on.
Thank you Greg.
Go further. The question is why did you hold incorrect views in the first place. Also, Greg is a pilot, not an historian.
@@seanm2511 Greg is quite a good amateur historian even if he has made no claims to be one and he usually has multiple sources whereas Dr Felton’s sources often remain a mystery.
Why was I wrong?
1. I was emotional invested in an aircraft I liked.
2. I was not sufficiently educated as to that facts.
3. I wasn’t sufficiently skeptical of the facts presented in the MFP video. The story was entertaining and I was amused at Mark Felton’s habit of picking stories that sticks it to the US. Being amused however should not be an excuse and I’m not going to hide behind it.
I’d now like to hear Greg’s take of the MFP video on the Cold War Avro Vulcan raid on the USA where the UK managed to infiltrate through the USA air defences and simulate bombing US cities.
Great historians never do.
@@DNModels Yes and I see by your lack of references we are in the presence of greatness. ;-)
It's indeed good that he shows sources. At the same time those sources don't really support what he says. He claims that there were no political reasons but at 4:54 it is obvious in the text that Arnold did not want a British plane to deliver "our" bomb. A very clear political reason.
And at 05:04 Greg says: On this page he points out that the bombs themselves changed a bit making them easier to fit the B29.
But that is not what the page says. The page states that the bombs were changed to make them fit the B29. That is different.
It's good to see the sources so that we know Greg very much reads what he wants to read in the sources. Just like Mark Felton does.
It's very obvious that the Lanc was not seriously considered for political reason. So both Greg and Mark are both partly right and partly wrong.
I’m a bit late to this discussion, I agree with your rebuttal of the Lancaster A bomber thesis. However on flight refuelling you’ve missed some wartime developments. I’d recommend the RAF Historical Society Journal No. 44 originally printed in 2009. The article “Tiger Force and Flight Refuelling “ by Brian Gardner. Most of the journals are online.
There is good evidence that even before VE day UK was planing to switch operations to the Pacific theatre with the dreaded invasion of Japan looming. Of course eliminated by the A bomb. A version of the Mosquito called the Hornet was developed en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet
I have no doubt much planning for many scenario were in motion to end the war as soon as possible with resources already available. Reverse engineering published asset performance today and applying to historical known field situations is only a loose understanding of hypothetical asset application strategic possibilities.
The Royal Navy did make a limited return to the Pacific in 1943. The US Navy was down to one operating carrier (USS Saratoga) while waiting for the new Essex class carriers to arrive. The Royal Navy obliged by sending HMS Victorious operating under the name USS Robin. The US Navy badly needed an extra flight deck, while the Royal Navy wanted to learn about US Navy flight operations. The pilots would practice flying off and landing on either flight deck. The US pilots liked the Robin because they could get a rum issue, the British pilots liked the Saratoga because they could get ice cream.
They also sent a whole fleet/US carrier task force in 44 after Normandy.
The BPF fascinates me for some reason, I wish they got to see more action.
So the British like ice cream and the American like something alcoholic
Now what do i do with these information
@@twddersharkmarine7774 mix them?
@@SpiritOfMontgomery It was a logistics nightmare, extending that supply chain all the way back to Britain, and too much stuff was incompatible with the US supply chain. It was an ego fleet. It was useful to the war effort, but cost more than Britain could afford.
Epic takedown !! When facts meet fiction. Noticed a while ago Feltons stories often omitted or skewed things…. Thank you
I completely agree with this video. I am a physicist a prepared a ppt preseentation on the development of the "atomic bomb" (Manhattan Project). At that time Tinian had the longest airstrips (4) in the world and any other airfield was out of the queston for the job. (Okinawa was considered and also used as on the way back for emergeny landing, when the aircafts were "light".) Even so, with the necessary fuel and the weight of the bomb, an engine failure during takeoff would have been disatrous. (Think of the A-bomb going off at Tinian instead of Japan!) Captain Wiliam Parsons, head of the Los Alamos bomb design team, who was also on board the Enola Gay, realized this when seeing such an accident just a day before the mission! He decided to personally activate LIttle Boy (Uranium bomb, Hiroshima) in the air. (Think of him working on the U-bomb in the bombbay at 10.000 ft.) This could not be done in case of Fat Man (Plutonium bomb, Nagasaki - an implosion bomb) - you just crossed your fingers. As far as I know the Lancaster was considered first (in 1943) because it could take the large size A-bomb easier due to the development of the Tallboy bomb but B-29s could be adapted realtively easyly. Don't forget that the 309 Composite Group commanded by Col. Paul Tibbets was practicing A-bomb missions with specially adopted B-29s (bombay expanded, turrets removed) since Dec. 1944 with mockup A-bombs (Pumpkin bombers). (At times with real TNT loads over Japan!) (Project Silverplate).
Excellent video Greg. Recently I've learned that MFP is a very dubious source of info on WW2 in general. Good to see some very knowledgeable people biting back as of late. Keep up the good work
It's a shame they didn't just scrap the B-32 project, and fast-tracked the B-36 instead. The Peacemaker would definitely have been a game changer.
I am very disappointed with Marc Felton. Almost all of these TH-cam producers are just doing sloppy work in order to produce a lot of content, very very poor content
Great video. I stopped watching MFP over a year ago after I had watched enough of the videos to realize most were just sensationalist or else speculative. A lot of the history/military/hardware channels on youtube seem to be tied in one way or the other with the wargaming community, such as WOT, War Thunder, etc, and while its great a new generation is being exposed to the history and is interested, the downside is a lot of the fanboyism and speculative stuff from the games is blurring into the actual history now.
Pretty much the same for me. I gave up on that channel when I realised that they were presenting their videos as hard facts without sources and without any critical discussion of conflicting sources. The M8 Greyhound vs King Tiger 1944 video is a good example of this. His sources are a reddit post and a tank wiki. There is no discussion about the plausibility of that account, the other conflicting accounts, nor the fact that there is no surviving record of Tiger II tanks in that area for the event. The video is just presented as cold hard facts.
I'm not sure how much gaming has got to do with it, there are plenty of reasons someone might be biased towards an unrealistic view of a particular machine - or just biased towards exciting sensationalist stories for that matter - which don't require that they be a gamer. Besides, Felton's channel doesn't have direct connections to gaming, does it?
well put Sir. i also dumped the MFP 12 months ago
Mark Felton's videos are entertaining, but you have to account for his pro British bias.
@@ollimoore
He's frequently sponsored by the studios that produce World of Tanks/Warships and Warthunder.
Credit where its due, he does regularly discuss obscure subjects I've been unaware of, unfortunately when he covers something I am familiar with I can spot the frequent glaring errors, bassically his channel is only good as a jumping off point when something peaks my interest.
Glad you're around, Greg. Fan of all your vids. Well researched, well put together, great listening material for interesting and obscure topics.
Terrific video Greg. Now THAT is what i call a thorough and polite rebuttal! After the War, did the British ever consider the Avro Lincoln as an atomic bomber? I know that issues with the bomb bay ultimately hindered the Lincoln and forced them to to switch to the Boeing Washington (a.k.a. the B-29) in 1950. The Aussies also tested two ex-Washingtons once the Canberra was ready, but that went nowhere.
The First British A-Bomb was 17 feet long, had a diameter of 62 inches and weighed in at around 10,000lb. You couldn't get the thing into a B-29. The RAF binned the Washington (B-29) in 1954. The Lincoln was retired as a bomber in Europe in 1955, though aircraft were used in second line roles until 1963 and for operations where there was little to no Air to Air threat.
I never knew there was a Boeing Washington used by the RAF. When I visited Duxford about 10 years ago I was very surprised to see a B-29. I must have missed an explanatory sign - I was somewhat stupefied by the number of aircraft on display. What a variety! There was also an airshow that day. Suffice it to say I was on a heavy sensory overload but I've always remembered the B-29 there. Now I know why it makes sense that the UK displays one - thank you!
I took special note of the B-29 because my dad worked on them in WW2. He was a ground crewman specializing in the electromechanical remote controlled gun turrets. Fortunately for my existence he was only old enough to enter the USAAF late in the war and served on stateside training bases.
Greg, outstanding as always. Here's an issue you might consider. Would you address the F4u Corsair and the initial problems the US Navy experienced in approving it for carrier operations. There are many articles out there claiming one thing or another regarding who solve the carrier landing issues. Maybe you can clear up who actually solved the landing gear, the wing stall, tail wheel assembly, cowling flaps, etc. Although the carrier approach issue was solved by the Brits, I'm wondering about the aircraft design features and who actually solved them.
Jup and the strange part is that VF-17 was allowed to set sail on Bunker Hill to the Southwest Pacific. During which time they ofcourse flew of the carrier.
Near the end of the cruise to the Southwest Pacific area the decision was made for VF-17 to leave the carrier to simplify logistics.
This story just gives me the feeling that there were other reasons than the Corsair's carrier suitability. I guess it really depends on the definition carrier suitability, but things relating to that would probably more accurate reasons.
I know the USN put air valves in the struts to control the boucing when the F4 landed on carriers
Yes this would be an awesome topic
@@martijn9568 The reason was they couldnt figure out how to land them on carriers because of the long nose obstructing the view.
It was the British that perfected the technique of coming around just abaft of the carrier for a controlled approach, then they taught the Americans, then the Americans, who up until that point had used them in land based operations, started using the Corsairs extensively off of carriers as well.
@@ToreDL87 Yeah, so that's just a moot point. VF-17 actually demonstrated that they could safely land Corsairs on aircraft carriers. They were only removed from their carrier after getting "close" to the area of operations.
Wasn’t the B 32 Dominator the backup plan if the B 29 was a bust? I know it had some development problems too (as all aircraft do-certainly in wartime), but it did bomb Japan a few times, so it clearly could reach the target, the fact that only a little over 100 were made strongly suggests to me that the USAAF had concluded that either the B 29 was good to go, or had a clear path to success which allowed them to cut short the B 32 program.
Ya I think they funded them just because of the war. I think once the prototypes were airborne the performance difference between the two relagated the Dominator to minor bombing and transport missions. I think the last US plane attacked in WW 2 involved a pair of B-32's.
The B-32 was supposed to be a cheap, quick, low-risk alternative to the B-29, without all the fancy gadgetry that ran up the program cost and development time of the Superfortress. Unfortunately the B-32 program ran into problems of its own; and by the time the first examples were ready for delivery to the AAF, the B-29 was already in combat (and was generally a better airplane).
@@Philistine47
The B32 wasn't supposed to be a cheap low risk alternative to the B29, it just turned out that way.
The USAAC knew in the late 30's that the development of a bomber for the specifications they'd laid down was going to be a big gamble due to some of the requirements of the specifications, so instead of putting all their eggs in one basket they awarded both Boeing and Consolidated contracts to develop bombers to the specifications laid down, it was a "whoever crosses the finish line first" kind of deal.
The B32 originally had the same type of complex defensive fire control system made by Sperry that the B29 had, but the problem that Consolidated had was with pressurizzing the airframe, Boeing had successfully managed to get the pressurized fuselage of the B29 to work so that put them ahead of Consolidated in producing a bomber to the specifications laid down by the Army, once it was apparent that the B29 was going to beat the B32 into production the pressurized fuselage of the B32 was dropped turning it into a medium level bomber along with the remote fired defensive guns being dropped in favor of the conventionally fired defensive guns, both being done to expedite it's development in the interest of converting existing B17 and B24 units in the Pacific over to B32 since it still would have a longer range than them, however other production delays prevented even that from happening.
The B32 does however have the distinction of being the last Allied aircraft to have seen combat in WW2, there was some type of an incident where after the Japanese surrendered some Japanese fighter pilots attacked a B32.
The B-32 was more a backup program to the B-29 than anything, although I would like to see Greg make a video about it and why it failed if possible. The last WWII engagement was indeed two B-32 Dominators (Hobo Queen II, which gained altitude and evaded, and an unnamed aircraft that was quite badly shot up, and which produced the last aerial casualty of the War, Sergeant Anthony Marchione). The unnamed Dominator was intercepted by over a dozen IJN aircraft (mostly Zeroes with two or three Georges) under Saburo Sakai's command (they were quite drunk at the time, I should add; not Sakai's best showing and he does not mention it in his autobiography). She was hit more than a few times and rather remarkably managed to keep going. But the Dominator had issues with the engines overheating really badly and the solenoids that deployed the landing gear "firing" at random (which is what killed Hobo Queen II; her nose gear retracted suddenly while parked!). The B-32 WAS looked at as an atomic bomber, but with the B-35 and B-36 coming online, plus the XB-44 which in turn became the B-50, the USAAF just figured "okay, we do not need this."
@@Philistine47 The B-32 was supposed to have the gadgetry, it just didn't all seem to work in the B-32 and some of it was eliminated to save weight and cost.
Great work Greg. Leonard Cheshire was one of the leading RAF Bomber Pilots in WW2. He commanded 617 after Guy Gibson, he was experienced at dropping large bombs, the tall boy. Wouldn’t he be the sort of man us Brits would have picked to drop the A-Bomb … maybe MFP could tell us why then that Cheshire was sat in the B-29 Big Stink as an observer.
*_Well Played_*
Because the Americans wanted official British Observers to witness the attack? I mean the answer to that question is really very simple. The British after all had quite a significant role in the Manhattan Project after all, far more of a role than many Americans realise, and than some like to admit. If Cheshire and Perry had not been there another two British RAF officers would have been.
He was simply there as an observer to the event, not as part of the crew. It is also worth bearing in mind that while Cheshire did fly Operational Sorties with 617 Squadron he was not officially supposed to. The RAF rule was that following their 3rd full combat tour pilots and aircrew were not officially permitted to undertake Operational flying. Some like Cheshire ignored that rule, but he was the exception to the rule.
My Great Uncle survived two full combat tours as a Lancaster Rear Gunner, the chances of any air crew surviving one full tour was pretty slim, let alone three. Hence the rule.
@@alganhar1 On both this channel and Mark Felton's, it's nice to find sensible discussions and intelligent debate. Not the usual TH-cam offensiveness. Lovely.
@@alganhar1 I was being sarcastic, I know he was an observer.
Hit the nail on head- if the RAF HAD to launch an atomic raid, the selection procedure for who carries it out would have been a two minute chat then a call to 617.
And while it wouldnt have been Cheshire leading the raid, is simply no evidence in the multitude of 617 books and whatever of ANY training or prep for an atomic strike misssion.
(Side note- My mother knew Cheshire, she worked for his charity post war. And on my dads side my gran was a fire warden around the Avro factory in Manchester. hes into his planes, i followed suit. The lanc is a wonderful, wonderful aircraft* but never in all my years have we 2 in this family heard of any hint or rumor of it being considered for the Enola Gay gig.)
but then Felton is a bit of a hack with an alarming percentage of wehraboo and closet nazi/race warrior fanbois
Great video Greg! I had the pleasure of working in the same building that was to modify the B-29's for the atomic missions. Also, you are correct about FRL (now Cobham Limited) and their dominance in the refueling field. especially their MPRS Pods (Multi Point Refueling System). We would meet with the FRL guys in Bournemouth for "user conferences" and then tour their facilities. Great fun back in the days working with the guys from the USAF, RAF, RAAF. RSAF and FAF personnel.
Hi Greg, I found my old (1971) copy of Owen Thetford’s “Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918”. On page 110 it has a listing for the “Boeing Washington” (yes, the B-29) which was brought in during 1950 to equip 8 RAF squadrons under the US Military Aid Program.
This was a period when Bomber Command (as it was still called) was using the Lincoln, and the Washington was brought in as a stop-gap until the Canberra (and later the V-bombers) could be brought into service.
So despite their short in-service life (1950 to 1954, with a few retained until 1958), apparently even the RAF felt the B-29 was in ways superior to the ultimate Lancaster development, the Lincoln!
Not quite. The B29's they used were free, compared to having to buy more Lincolns when they knew they were *all* going to be replaced by the Canberras as soon as it was available. The Lincolns and Lancasters *were* better bombers for what the RAF wanted and needed: they had a higher bomb carry weight over the distances the RAF wanted and they were far more advanced in terms of bomb aiming tech and defensive control.
@@iatsd good point on the cost, it didn’t make clear they were free!
The section in the book stated that the Washingtons were an improvement on the Lincoln - of course that was written in 1972 when some details of the Lincoln would have been covered by the official secrets act. It may simply have been that the Lincolns were, by that time, clapped out…
@@aerotorc It's one of those interesting areas of debate: what is better?
The B29's were technically more advanced in their engineering construction (pressure hulls, more automation for crew comforts, more crew comforts outright, etc) and had *much* greater range, but the Lincolns were technically more advanced by using automated all weather landing systems, radar guided bombing systems for all weather precision attack, more advanced electronic (but not digital) navigation systems, actual onboard ECM systems, and more advanced radar guided self defence system.
At the same time, the Lincoln airframe design was cruder than the B29, with no pressure hull, limited crew comforts, less range, and poorer build quality. So it becomes a real "Which is better depends on what you're wanting as the type goals".
Personally, I think the Lincoln served the RAF better in the sense that it filled the need the RAF thought it had at the time but only in the context of "We're waiting for the Canberra". The Washingtons didn't suit RAF doctrine or tactics, or the type of war the RAF thought they might face against the Soviets if that happened, but they *were* (effectively) free, so they saved the RAF cash and at that point the UK was *utterly* broke, so that was a *strong* factor in accepting them.
In an interesting historical coincidence, on June 15, 1944, the first US bombing raid on the Japanese home islands since the Doolittle raid was made by B-29s flying from China and the US also invaded Saipan. The US was already using B-29 bombers to attack Japan in June 1944, although the raids were relatively minor and the logistics of supplying fuel and bombs to China by flying them over the 'hump' of the Himalayan mountains verged on the impractical. Once the Marianas island chain was secured and airbases were built, the B-29s moved to Guam, Saipan, and Tinian.
The important takeaway from this is that the US had the ability to attack the Japanese home islands as early as June 1944, and used the Marianas as bases to bomb Japan starting in November 1944. The US didn't need an emergency backup plan to use Lancasters once it had five large bases in the Marianas that could support up to 180 B-29 bombers each, and were fully operational seven months before the first test of the atomic bomb in July 1945.
Exactly - as Greg pointed out towards the end of the video, it was an established design and it’s performance was simply leaps and bounds better than any other bomber in the world.
For good reason as well - most people don’t realize that the Superfortress program cost about $45 billion (with a B!) dollars in today’s $$$, 30% MORE than the entire nuclear weapons program in the US (which in itself saw entire towns built, the largest buildings in the world for plutonium and uranium production, etc.) It was simply a monumental program.
Not to crap on the Lancaster, but the idea that the US would even consider a plane like that while possessing a platform like the B-29 is just laughable.
Exactly - as Greg pointed out towards the end of the video, it was an established design and it’s performance was simply leaps and bounds better than any other bomber in the world.
For good reason as well - most people don’t realize that the Superfortress program cost about $45 billion (with a B!) dollars in today’s $$$, 30% MORE than the entire nuclear weapons program in the US (which in itself saw entire towns built, the largest buildings in the world for plutonium and uranium production, etc.) It was simply a monumental program.
Not to crap on the Lancaster, but the idea that the US would even consider a plane like that while possessing a platform like the B-29 is just laughable.
@@EstorilEm yet the soviets blew the yanks out the water with the tsar bomba and a relatively old TU-95 which is still in russian service...not to crap on the B-29 but the russians do it just that bit better.
@@doctorsocrates4413 when was this supposed to occur?
@@doctorsocrates4413 I guess that they can reverse engineer ok, too bad they fall behind otherwise.
Pretty much standard fare from MFP.
Thank you Greg for the well researched and factually backed video. I watch MFP videos a lot, I enjoy them but was disappointed that more myth than fact was used on his atomic Lancaster video. Thanks again for the excellent videos, much appreciated.
Thanks for the necessary correction. Too many TH-cam "histories" never cite sources and are indiscriminate about using stock footage. This is a breath of fresh air.
Once again another fantastic video Greg. I learned so much from this video about the Avro Lancaster. I have always loved this plane. Thank you so much for covering this topic. I had heard the Lancaster as an alternate to the B-29 story before and always had my doubts especially when it came to range? Nevermind the altitude and fending off what few Japanese fighter planes might have been left?
I used to watch mark felton, but I slowly realized some of his content was questionable in analysis or sensationalized. I no longer think his channel is a very good watch
I thought the same. He also fixates too much on the minutiae of the top Nazi's, in a way I find distasteful.
Greg, Yet another awesome video! I truly loved it. I watched the MFP video and accepted it as fact. Your arguments are bulletproof. Thanks for setting the record straight. On another note. I was a global base engine design manager for one of the big three. If you ever feel the need to connect. That would be cool. Thanks again for the video. All the best. Chuck
"expecting everything to go swimmingly all the time is indicative of a person that has never worked on any technical project of any significance"
This alone is worth the video, the series and the channel.
P A gets it! Thanks.
1st class Greg. .. a respectful counter balance presentation based on well researched , and aircraft centric knowledge.
An interesting thought for a future presentation might be the RAF Squadron that did reached Australia late in the war equipped with twin Hi Ball anti shipping Mosquitos
It's relatively easy to tell which TH-camrs are motivated by money, and which are motivated by sharing knowledge.
I instantly unsubscribe from any channel with clickbait titles/thumbnails, and videos being exactly 10minutes long. It's one thing to have a sponsor/patreon, it's another to have your channel being dedicated to the algorithm.
OK... How about Greg cashing out on 16X more followers ? That was almost bullying with no respect for the guy whatsoever.. Click bait with a purpose...
I'm still subbing to Felton's channel. But he did earn a dislike from me. As it should be rather than simply unsubbing just because you disagree with someone
@@Superbee62 He put a video up on TH-cam that was completely fauluse....this is what happens....
@@Superbee62 Greg says he tried to contact MFP and got no response. What more respect is possible?
@@rockoorbe2002 disliking a video also increases its rank in the algorithm, TH-cam doesn't care if you dislike a video, if you dislike it enough to watch it they still profit, and the creator profits, which is the real reason they removed the dislike count. What you really need to do to demote a video is not watch it, not dislike it, not like it, not comment it, just do nothing.
Mark Felton has made quite a few outrageous claims. I stopped subscribing to his channel when he claimed Eagle Squadrons had "fought bravely in the Battle of Britain" when, in fact, the first Eagle Squadron wasn't operational till Feb 1941.
True it's Mark stretching facts to fit his narrative. The first Eagle squadron was formed on 19th September 1940 BUT was not operational until Feb 1941 as you state.
Plus his BS accusing the Deutsches Panzermuseum had sold their Tiger. Easily verifiable facts are a mere inconvenience for him. As he puts fake junk in his work, it becomes hard to trust anything.
I met Dutch Van Kirk at a book signing for his book and asked him if the Lancaster had been considered for this mission. He stated he thought he had heard it was but could not confirm this.
I used to watch mfp... But the more i learned about the topics portrayed in the videos, the more it seemed like someone on a mission to keep up some sort of 1945 propaganda legacy, reminds me of those tabloid news programs that overdramatise one side of an arguement/point of view so that people who lack basic critical thinking skills are triggered with whatever emotion they wish to enourage the watcher to have.
I had the same, and felt _really_ weird when others commended him for being a historian.
Thanks for de-gaslighting me 😅😆
That video was the first time I watched a MFP video and said “wait, that’s not true” multiple times.
What's ineteresting about his videos is that he often presents them as "another perspective" on popular narratives. I actually don't mind that -- after all, there are as much "truths" as there are people and history *does* get rewritten to paint people and institutions in a better light. As Bismarck pointed out in his vid on Nazi ideals in the Luftwaffe. And as Greg himself pointed out in his vid on P-51 vs P-47 range.
But claiming there are black planes at a certain place at a certain time, that are capable of doing a specific mission -- well, if Felton doesn't have a credible source for that, than I can't justify trusting his other "different perspective" videos either.
@@zJoriz I agree, finding new information, or perhaps from the perspective of the other side compared to popular history is excellent, you need to hear and see both sides information in order to determine the most likely actual events that transpired.
And yes, straight up seemingly making up a list of things that happened is not history, i feel that if someone was going to claim such a story, at least point to where or how you found it out in order for the watcher to go and delve deeper if they wish to know more. If those arent provided, i guess its just a story and should be treated as such
The B-29 project was more expensive than the bomb itself.
It was one of the largest and the most complex aircraft of its time.
The Lancaster was capable, but nowhere near in the same league.
It was a matter of great prestige for the soviets to build a copy of the b29, not the Lancaster
Also... wasn't there a whole other plane produced by Consolidated in case the B-29 was a turkey?
@@ronniedale6040 and even the tu-95 still has b29 DNA and the russians want to run those till 2040. shows how far ahead the b29 was.
@@420JackG that would be the b32 dominator. Ironically it flew the last combat missions of the war
@@ronniedale6040 - A very precise copy, as they also replicated a small repair patch on the plane's skin.
I always thought that the "Nuclear Lancaster" theory was hard to take seriously. The B-29 was really a new generation bomber compared to the Lancaster. The Lancaster's range and load capacity were just not comparable to the B-29.
The RAF planned some next gen stuff but WW2 appeared so none got further than paper exercises. The last of the generation leading into that were the likes of the Windsor and its developments which was a bit of a failure. Much as the Lincoln was an improvement over the Mk. I Lancaster it was a comparatively weak affair compared to the proposed super bombers of the B-29 class that were proposed and never built. Against an enemy with operational air defences the Lincoln wasn't going to be able to make it to the target with atomic weapons. The Shackelton did later get rated for nuclear depth charges, though.
As far as an alternate go-to bomber, the US did have a plan if the B-29 didn't pan out as a conventional bomber: The B-32 Dominator. This plane had many of the attributes of the B-29 (and many of its problems also), with similar top speed and cruise speed, altitude and bomb load. The 2 things it lacked were the range (about 2/3 that of the 29, but 33% more than the Lanc), and a pressurized cabin. AND, even it was never seriously considered as the A-bomb delivery system.
@@rwhutchnlj The B-32 was pretty far behind the B-29 in development and would have needed additional changes to accept Thin Man. In terms of range, it would have been worse than a Lincoln/Lancaster IV. So I'd put the B-32 behind the Lincoln in that role, at least when Thin Man was an possibility. Realistically, the B-29 was still the best choice for the atomic attack, but a Lincoln could probably just about have done it in a pinch. It wouldn't be a first choice, though.
One angle of confusion is possibly; the scientists involved in the build of the A bomb would not have had the greatest of understanding of aircraft performance, or have specific understanding of operational requirements. Many ideas are banded about by people with good intent, but little of the necessary specific knowledge.
Guns blazing! Take no prisoners, Greg. Someone had to do it and I trust no one but you to make this callout. Apologies for not being active on your channel for a while. Real life has been a bit rough. Almost 100k!
Hi Asif, I hope you're OK, yes life can be tough, I know you'll pull through it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thank you Greg. You saying that means a lot, more than you'll know.
MFP discounts the US contribution to victory in WWII. That's a common theme to many of his videos and is very obvious to other historians viewing them.
How much credit do you want? Except for a couple episodes covering isolated incidents of captured Germans being killed, I always thought Felton was oddly pro-american.
I feel like a fool.
I belived Mark Felton. I remember that video he made about the Lancaster as a backup to nuking Japan very well.
How can I take one of Feltons videos seriouslly ever again?
Well, I can't. That is the answer I'm coming to.
I appreciate all the research that you have done and presented in your videos. Years ago I had paid a visit to the War Eagles Air Museum in Santa Teresa, NM and saw the tabbed pins that were collected on display. An interesting story was told that a German visitor took note of a tabs date and target and realized that he was there that day. Fortunately for him, he was outside of the bombed area.
Wow, that's really something. I hope to get back there, if I do I'll make a video about it.
Awesome video as always Greg, enjoyed it! As an ex USAF jet jokey who spent quite a bit of time flying KC-135s and refueling other hungry for Jet-A I like to think I know a few things about refueling mid air. In order for air to air refueling to work IT HAS TO BE SUCCESSFUL! If the rendezvous fails or the equipment fails you have a failed mission. If you don’t have a successful hookup with your tanker you need to be able to fly to your alternate with whatever fuel you have in your tanks. Not very many options in the pacific for this work. I don’t really care how many tanker Lancaster you think you need, your going to at least double it or triple your number of backups for such a critical mission. That is a lot of airplanes beyond the planned mission support aircraft (wx/photo etc) increasing the chances of a ground abort. OK rant off, great video!
As a USAF Fighter pilot (long Retired) just wanted to thank you and all the others in the Big Friendlies for the gas. The Air Superiority of the US and our Allies was achieved due to our air-to-air capabilities. Now, about my Green Stamps...
@@itsjohndell due to budgetary concerns, we have suspended our green stamp program......😀
@@chrisvandecar4676
Did you happen to The Operations Room's video on the Vulcan raid on the Falklands?
11 tankers for 2 bombers, one of which was a reserve (which proved necessary).
Even with explanation, I still don't fully understand the Refueling Plan 😆🙈
Really increased my respect for the RAF's professionalism!
Lots of stories from that war. One I heard when I was TDY to Castle AFB, CA; they have a Vulcan at in their museum there, once the Falklands kicked off, a few RAF personnel arrived and removed the refueling probe from the museum's Vulcan as it was needed to install on one of the RAF's active Vulcans😀
Back to back viewing of the eurocompulsion abath 124 and a break down of missconceaptions surrounding 2 amazing aircraft?! What an awesome evening this has been!
I understand you are an airline pilot? A serious person. I have enjoyed your videos for years.
I am a private pilot. My dad was a search and rescue pilot in vietnam, and flew C 133s before that trans pacific.
My wife's uncle flew B29's in the 40s during ww2 . My recollection of my father and her uncle is that they were steady people.
Dad retired a bird Col. I met Gen. Tibbets at my house on Maxwell AFB in 1982 . I was 14. Dad knew alot of people. Also met Greg Boyington and C Yeager.
There's an excellent book called "The Kamikaze Hunters" by Will Iredale that describes the Royal Navy's use of the F4U Corsair in the Pacific towards the end of the war against the Divine Wind, and in its use for ground attack; and also details the ability of their aircraft carrier's steel flight decks to absorb the punishment of an aircraft crashing into it.
Another great video, Greg!
I am an avid fan of Mark Felton. I truly hope he takes this criticism constructively!
@LudVan 78 my doubts arose when I started noticing something in the comments section of his videos. You have to scroll for ages before you find a comment that isn't along the lines of 'Dr Felton/Mr Felton, excellent video as always!'. I think he's gained a cult of personality and that's never a good sign - history enthusiasts should know that more than anyone.
@LudVan
I was going to mention the same thing. B-29 was developed with the A-Bomb in mind. And yes, development was more expensive than the A-Bomb.
Side note: read about the Russians program to copy the B-29. 3 “capture” units were used to make somewhat crude copies due to technical shortcomings of the Soviet system. Of course we didn’t want to give it to them voluntarily as it was an A-Bomb delivery tool. They had already stolen our A-Bomb plans.
@@bobkrohn8053 Some could say the B-29 was kind of ripping off the heinkel bomber as it too has the spherical nose.The soviet technical aspects of nuclear bombs are actually more accurate than the americans..the little boy bomb only attained a 0.2% fission point...in fact the tsar bomba was technically the best bomb ever tested..sakharov predicted a 50mt yield before testing...both the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs were woefully inefficient in terms of fission.
@@doctorsocrates4413
Ohhh, so the Heinkel had fully pressurized cabin? Remote Controlled machine guns?etc, etc. More money was spent developing the B-29 than was spent on the A-Bomb.
Any advancements in Atomic Energy by Russia were most assuredly achieved through espionage. Same with space travel. Ever see pics of their aborted space shuttle? Carbon Copy.
No - I don't believe that Mark Felton Productions had anything right. I also answered yes to your question about whether Lancaster could carry nukes, because it was vague. If they were chosen to carry them - they would be modified and nukes would be modified, until mission was possible.
I wish you the very best, stay safe and be well! I will watch this video slightly later, since I have an appointment when you air this. I also do know some things about nuclear weapons.
I have never heard of any Black squadron or Lancaster based plan to take over from B29's. Not until a certain You-tuber got a lot of attention by suggesting it. My dad and uncles were in RAF during ww2. The atomic bomb came as a huge shock to them as it did to everyone not directly involved with the Manhattan project.
C'mon, Mark has bills to pay...
Theoretically a perfectly white material will reflect all light incident to (hitting) it whereas a black object (the theoretically idealised case is known as a black body) will absorb all light incident to it. Therefore, painting an aircraft white reduces the energy it absorbs from the sun and thus reduces it's temperature.
Note:
For aircraft which fly extremely fast such as the blackbird black paint is preferable as at extreme speeds aircraft experience extreme "kinetic heating" (heating from the air hitting them). In this regime the greater radiation of heat from black paint outweighs the greater absorption of light.
This is a high level overview and as such is highly simplified however, it is generally accurate for speeds below around mach 5
What changes at or above Mach 5?
(oversimplification is welcomed again)
@@MrNicoJac The difference is the source of the heat. If it's an external radiation source, such as the sun or a nuclear bomb, you want a highly reflective surface to bounce incoming photons before they can heat the metal up. For a high speed plane, the heat source is friction with the air rather than incoming radiation. In that case, the metal is already hot and a black surface is most efficient at dumping the heat by radiating out (it's also sucking up sunlight, but that's small potatoes compared to the friction so you don't care). Hope this helps.
@@turbulentlobster That does help, thanks.
Queue the music…in the final days of WW2 many people would be surprised to hear that captured German engineers were preparing a giant flying wing jet bomber to drop nuclear weapons on Japan in the case that new Japanese jet fighters intercepted American B-29s…
Was this the same giant flying wing that crashed in the Actic with Captain America on board?
@@fafner1 no this one crashed at Roswell
Regarding white paint...
As a simulation engineer in exhaust system development one of the typical simulations is a Temperature Distribution Analysis. Of course one of the parameters influencing the result is the emissivity coefficient of the metal surface. And while searching for reasonable values I found:
- For stainless steel it varies from close to 0.1 for polished/blank to close to 0.9 for oxidized/after the first winter with salty roads.
- If it's painted the actual color doesn't matter that much, epsilon will be high and around 0.9.
- For polished aluminum it can go below 0.1.
And what does that mean for a comparison B-29 vs Lancaster?
You can polish the aluminum surface of a B-29 so it will absorb less than 10% of the light/heat and reflect more than 90% but you can't do that to the fabric covered parts of the Lancaster and painting it white doesn't help that much.
- - - - -
PS: If you use an infrared camera to determine surface temperatures, say, of exhaust systems and the like, you will find the requirement to paint the surfaces with a special paint. But that will change the emissivity coefficient of the surface and typically increase its emissivity and heat loss through radiation, lowering the temperature you want to measure.
- - - - -
www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
The only fabric covered parts of the Lancaster were control surfaces. Same for the B-29.
Why would we use something as experimental as mid-air refueling when we only had 2 bombs.?
Greg, I really support your effort to counter misinformation. Also, thank you for making accommodations for audio only listeners.
Thanks Greg. When I first saw the Mark Felton TH-cam video on the Lancaster as a possible atomic bomb delivery vehicle, I thought it seem a little difficult to believe. I didn’t realize how much of a “fantasy” it was. I really appreciate all the efforts that go into your very well researched videos.
The funny part is how many people bought it hook line and sinker.
Bravo! When I heard Mark Feldon’s discussion about the aircraft used to drop the bomb I laughed my ass off. The US spend more on the development of the B29 than the cost of the bomb. The Enola Gay and Box Car were purportedly built for this role. I would doubt the the Landcaster could get off the ground, much less make it to the targets, or have the operational ceiling to stay out of harms way.
The USA spent more on the Nordon bombsight than the cost of the bombs too. Ironically the nuclear bombings were some of the very few times they were able to be used for accurate targetting - when precision targetting really didn't matter much
@@miscbits6399 Want to see something look up how much was spent developing the proximity fuse for ordnance. The name doesn’t sound like a big thing, but it was an enormous expense.
@@nofrackingzone7479 Yes, amazing how much R&D gets spent on blowing people up. It was also a closely guarded secret for a long time
WRT the claim of Enola Gay and Bocks Car being built for the role: Not quite but they were modified for it
@@miscbits6399 There were 15 Silver Plate B29 aircraft prepared, along with 15 crews.
I do believe that there were persistent problems with engine fires aboard production B29s?
Thx, Greg, for hopefully putting this claim to rest.
In my reading of the Silverplate development, I recall that there was a point in time where there was a concern with the B-29's bombays not being long enough for the PRIOR to Little Boy/Fat Man A-bombs, and, from THIS one perspective, whether the Lancaster might be a possible solution. Obviously, the OK-LENGTH bombay was about the ONLY thing that would have worked for the Lancaster delivering an A-bomb. The other item, that MIGHT have contributed to this Lancaster theory, is that there was problem with the U.S. bomb shackles having the capacity for the A-bomb, and RAF hi-capacity (Tallboy?) shackles were used/fitted/adapted to Silverplate B-29's.
If the Lancaster was such a good fit for the nukes, and the fact that they had a plethora of them, and lots of personel familiar with them, spares, as well as the tooling to manufacture/repair/modify the the things, why did the British BUY the B-29 (the B-50 varient) for use as a nuclear bomber post war? Especially if they already had all the problems involved figured out?
With the litany of logistical tail that would have to be bought and integrated into the RAF?
The altitude, speed, and range limitations not withstanding.
I guess some people just think that operating an aircraft is comparable to operating a truck (which is a bit more complicated than operating a car or pickup but that's a different subject).
Please keep up with your very nuanced videos.
Because the B-29 had a chance of evading a Mig 15 due to the speed and height it could fly , A Lincoln had none!! The RAF didn't get B-50's, they got clapped out old B-29's and had major reliability issues with it.
@@dmunro9076 You didn't read what I said!!!! I said a B-29 had a better chance of evading a Mig 15 than a Lincoln!!!
@@dmunro9076 British didn't buy the B-29 to carry a Nuke!!! the British A Bomb was the size of a Tallboy and was not operational until 1955.
Nukes of that era didn't fit in standard b29s.
Lancaster may have been required for a Plutonium Gun Weapon had it been viable (it was going to need a much longer gun than Little Boy). Due to the fact that it was found that no gun system could get a plutonium critical mass together fast enough to stop pre detonation, the Plutonium Gun Weapon design was dropped and the Fat Man Implosion design was developed instead.
Edit
Noted the Thin Man bomb concept mentioned at the end. That was basically the Plutonium Gun Weapon. The US did build a prototype B-29 capable of carrying it before the weapon was shelved.
This was coincidentally the first Felton vid I ever watched, and immediately I was sus of the farfetched claims and lack of works cited. Very odd for a self-proclaimed historical author. I am no Lancaster or Bomber Command expert, but knew enough to find the fable more fiction than fact. So thank you for taking the time and effort to take analyze and deconstruct this claim.
Interesting response to MFP's video, thanks for taking the time to make this rebuttal. I think it is fair to suggest that there was some national politics in decision making such as this. The British were very generous with sharing information with the US early on but like in France, there is a strong streak of anti-British sentiment in some quarters and there was a great reluctance to reciprocate. Likely this anti-British sentiment has its roots in the Revolutionary War. Churchill by comparison, with and American mother, was notoriously pro-American.
That aside, the US was jealous of its control over the Pacific Theatre and the Japanese war and King wasn't keen for the Royal Navy to become involved and though it was, it was kept peripheral and hardly ranks in any mainstream histories, same too the loan of HMS Victorious to the US Pacific Fleet after Pearl Harbour. Macarthur's treatment of Australia's contribution to the Pacific Theatre (consigned to strategic backwaters), is another example of this behaviour.
Anyway, my point is the national concerns do influence decisions and the quote from Groves' book you showed also supports this idea. In no way am I contradicting your core argument, merely suggesting that some elements of Mark Felton's argument that you justifiably attack aren't as wrong as that.
MFP puts out an astonishing number of video content, a lot appears to be “stuff you never got the whole story on.”
Find it hard to believe so much content could be produced without compromising independent exhaustive research.
MFP has found a market, he makes a lot of money talking about WW2, and it’s mostly entertaining.
Having said that, I have managed engineering projects (which is why this channel is so interesting), and the British nuclear bomber alternative to the B29 video was absolute nonsense.
Typical of a “you Americans often needed us to pull your bacon out of the fire, and us Brits……” attitude I see occasionally.
Disclaimer: we certainly are not a perfect nation, but no one else lives in one of those, so get over it.
Brit here: the anti-American attitudes sometimes found here are infuriating.
"here" being Britain.
Yea well Mr. Mark Felton has provided us with his services and it's only natural to have a hic up every now and again.
Nobody is perfect, but to judge Mr.Felton on this one mistake isn't enough to justify his crucifixion.
@@BoleDaPole No one should be considered as gold, especially out of their specialty. Glad to see corrections being made, as false history is such a problem on TH-cam. Certainly however, Felton is fairly, if not very, good where he is most experienced.
There is still no comparison with actual "reading the wikipedia" content production channels, hopefully corrections can continue to be made with stories like these when things are wrong.
What boils my britches are all the hundreds and thousands of people who watch his content, say something like, "Wow, thanks for the info!" then spend the rest of their lives believing in fairy tales.
We know that Lancasters WERE prepared withlong-range modifications to drop earthquake bombs on the Honshu bridges. That was openly stated in "The Dambusters" by Paul Brickhill. One of the 617 Squadron personnel is said to have responded light-heartedly to news of the actual A-bombing with the words "They must have heard we were coming." I wonder if this was misinterpreted.
Mark Felton Productions are interesting, but he makes numerous errors as I have pointed out on several of his videos.
I think that we as Commonwealth (I'm Aussie) sometimes get sick of the "America saved WW2" chorus and therefore latch on to anything that counters that narrative? Just an example of how wanting it to be true fuels our bias I suppose....
So the USA should apologise for merging as a manufacturing & military Giant? Nothing like the sold out version of today sending the Russians 427,000,2 &1/2 ton trucks their troops would still be walking .And 1300 locomotives,13,000 tanks,14,000 planes.If you can find a Russian car jump in and realized how screwed the Red Army was with out massive Western Aide.But quality fuel being foremost
@@bigwoody4704 don't worry mate, I'm not denying the US contribution to the war, just suggesting why obviously wrong narratives sometimes get oxygen
@@drfill9210 Some gave all and many were never the same afterward. No matter whose flag they marched under
@@bigwoody4704 definitely. And it looks like the Americans are doing it again. I don't think people can talk much about it, but in the coming years we will probably find out about servicemen who quietly did stuff in Ukraine...
Thank god someone is calling felton out on his bullshit. He's gotten in trouble several times recently with his shoddy/jingoistic work. He has a very high reputation in the UK, but that is to be expected, he uncritically regurgitates British WW2 propaganda, as this response video highlights, with depressing regularity.
A new word was invented to fully describe what happened to the 6,000,000...
Well done Greg, another job well done. I'm a Brit and so I love the Lancaster but historical accuracy is vital. I think people produce these videos laced with bosh, bunkum and balderdash because they can, it makes a good video and the proles will lap it up - Stockholm syndrome as it were.
The UK didn't even use the Lincoln as a nuclear bomber postwar, they leased B-29s.
Did the British use B29's (aka Washington's) as nuclear platforms? From my research it wasn't until the introduction of the V-bombers that Britain had a deployable nuclear deterrent.
Very good presentation. I have been an aviation fan for over 55 years and had never read anything about the Lancaster being considered as a nuclear bomber. As you said the Lancaster was a great aircraft but it was designed for a war in Europe, not the vastness of the Pacific as the B-29 was. MFP is one of those click-bait channels with often sensational headlines to attract maximum viewers. The content is more fiction than fact.
Good job. Your scholarly indignation at Fraudulent Felton a delight. I knew Admiral Ashworth, the weaponeer on Bockscar. He was the USN eyes on both the B-29 program and doings at Los Alamos. He'd been on his way back to the Pacific with an F6F squadron when he got diverted into atomic matters. They picked him because he had aced engineering at Annapolis and gotten a DFC on TBFs. He told me the problems with early 29s scared him far more than glitches on The Hill. Beaucoup engine fires. Anyway, glad to see you set Felton straight. You really ought to be on faculty at a good university.
I promise you, I would not fit in at a modern University.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Good for us, sad but very true for the University system...
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
You'd probably do great here in Nijmegen, in the Netherlands :)
I always appreciate how well researched your content is. You take pains to support your conclusions, and are forthright in saying when there is not enough data to support certain assertions. As a journalist myself it pains me to see how much online content gets circulated that is not as well researched, and how it gets shared and shared again until it acquires a patina of 'truth.' Thank you for holding the line on actual truth.
I seem to remember that the bomb release shackles in the silverplate b29's were a British part, as the US inventory didn't have anything developed for weapons of these weights at the time, I think I read it in Richard Rhodes's book about the Manhattan project.
Great content and presentation! Finally, someone else with problems with MFPs videos and the many factual defects in them! Keep up the good work!