Freeman Dyson - Problems in bombing policy and aircraft design (38/157)

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 22

  • @cyclesgoff9768
    @cyclesgoff9768 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Yes the problem with the hatches , compounded by the main wing spar

  • @xdisruptor6630
    @xdisruptor6630 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    This man is so honest it brings us all to shame. He just humbles you with his forthcoming calm integrity. Such a lovely character of a good man.

  • @nickdanger3802
    @nickdanger3802 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    4.00 "escape hatches in the bombers were too small"

  • @nickdanger3802
    @nickdanger3802 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Berlin 'By March 1944, it became clear that the area offensive had fallen short of its goals and that Bomber Command was facing destruction by night fighters just as earlier it had faced destruction by day fighters.' - Noble Frankland, historian and Bomber Command veteran
    BBC Berlin Air Offensive 18 November 1943 to 24 March 1944

  • @mackenshaw8169
    @mackenshaw8169 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Any assessment of the air offensive must take into consideration the enormous amounts of air-power and 88mm guns taken away from other fronts. Without this effort, it is highly doubtful that local air superiority could have been won by the allies on any front and thus no counter-offensive would have been possible.

  • @nickdanger3802
    @nickdanger3802 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    7. "Men were sometimes injured or killed by striking parts of the aircraft after jumping. Only 25% of airmen safely exited Halifaxes and Stirlings, a mere 15% from Lancasters."
    IWM Life And Death In Bomber Command page

  • @Sphere723
    @Sphere723 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    In all fairness, the high command came to the same conclusions. The bombing effort was continued mainly because it was a reliable way to draw out the Luftwaffe in order to destroy it. But they were not about to tell all those bomber crews that they were nothing more than bait.

  • @cycochaos2
    @cycochaos2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The construction materials prevelant in Japanese cities made them especially susceptible to incendiary weapons.

  • @mrrolandlawrence
    @mrrolandlawrence 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    well japan also had the added advantage of having houses mostly built of wood. hamburg was an old city and also built of wood and the raf scored very well. berlin not so much. bomber command was a typical raf unit. running their own war. the americans did an investigation into the fails and wins of ww2 and concluded that the british desire to bomb berlin at the expense of supporting costal command, shipping etc lengthened the war. didnt know about the escape hatches. i did know that freeman told bomber command they could significantly up the speed of a lancaster bomber if they took 2 turrets off as they caused more drag and weight than they were worth.

    • @richardvernon317
      @richardvernon317 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Harris didn't do any raids on Berlin except two with Mosquitos in the first year that he was in charge of Bomber Command. He did two with Lancasters in March 1943 and didn't do it again until August 1943. The U-boats were defeated in the North Atlantic in May 1943.
      The primary reason it took so long to do that was the equipment and tactics required to hunt U-boats with Long range aircraft didn't become available until early 1943. Plus the US Navy made a load of cock ups in the Atlantic in 1942 due to Admiral King being a total cock. The massacre of shipping on the US East Coast in the first half of 1942 because he wouldn't do a Convoy system is the best known one. What is less known is he horded B-24's to build up a Land Based US Navy anti submarine patrol force from scratch and stopped those aircraft from going to RAF Coastal Command. Hap Arnold had already set up such an Organisation with the USAAF, so the US effort was duplicated and wasted resources.
      The British were also somewhat to blame, but not Bomber Command!! The B-24 was the best aircraft available for long range maritime patrol as it had 400 miles longer range than a Lancaster. The British had bought 130 of them in 1940 and when they got them in 1941, only 20 went to Coastal Command (to support a Squadron with 6 of them). Of the Rest, 32 Went to the Mediterranean air force as bombers. 32 when to India and the rest where used as airliners for flying ferry crews across the Atlantic, Plus Churchill was using one as his own personal Aircraft!!! Bomber Command didn't use the aircraft.
      As for the Escape Hatches on the Lancaster, it wasn't so much how big they were, but where they were located. Only the Gunners could get to the rear one and risked hitting the tail plane if they used it. The front one was under the Bomb Aimers position, tended to jam when being opened and all of the crew forward of the main spar could only get out by going forward past the pilot. On the other two heavy bombers access to the forward escape hatch for most of the crew was much easier and you didn't hit the tailplane going out of the rear one.
      Dickenson did pass on everything that Dyson did to Harris!! Problem was Harris couldn't do anything to fix issues with the aircraft, bar pass it to the Air Ministry with a recommendation that modifications to the Aircraft were carried out. It was usually endorsed by the Air Ministry only for the people who actually controlled the building and design of Aircraft, The Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Aircraft industry themselves to say, comeback in two years and we will have a fix!!!
      As for the removal of Turret's, by the time Dyson came up with the Idea, the Germans were already fitting Nitroxide injection systems to their Aero engines which was allowing their night attack fighter bombers to out run Mosquitos!! Anyhow, as soon as Overlord started, the RAF Heavies were going to operate by day and the Turrets were needed.

    • @mrrolandlawrence
      @mrrolandlawrence 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@richardvernon317 indeed the turrets with the tiny rifle bullets. as written elsewhere harris blocked the fitting of 50cal to the turrets saying that the effective range of the 303 was plenty in the dark - also stating that could not halt production, as kept loosing so many bombers. as for the range of the lancaster - without the full bomb load & a weapons bay filled with petrol, could have gone a lot further. the mozzie was fitted with such & had fantastic range. bomber command knew they could not hit anything with accuracy of 30 miles at night at the start. however their just kept in there because 90% chance of fatality before your 30 missions was over was fine. in fact its one of the reasons JFK hated the brits because one of his relatives was killed in some hair brain scheme that had no value to the war effort at all. the british RN also still hate the RAF to this day for abandoning them and trying to run their own war. not to mention the RAF taking over the FAA. politics. dont get me wrong, its a fascinating time in history with many power play politics at hand. history is most interesting when its not simple or black & white.

  • @11Kralle
    @11Kralle 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    German historians: "We had not the slightest chance against the overwhelming bomber incursions - the third Reich was doomed from the start..."British historians: "The german system of defences was too strong, highly effective and prone to repulse all the strategic efforts of bomber-command!"The history channel: "Nazi airpower - once invincible and ruthlessly innovative - slowly faded out after five years of constant strains on aryan manpower and an overall growing scarcety of necessary materials and finances, ...what a deplorable failure of that promising nation, whose final aerial defeat was due to Goerings inflexible notion of a Luftwaffe, worthy of the Reich."Soviet historians: "Nu pogodi - nemjetzki fashisti!"

    • @hank1519
      @hank1519 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Demonstrating that writing history is not a science.

    • @zenbudhism
      @zenbudhism 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Very hard to bomb war factories at night

  •  6 ปีที่แล้ว

    The perfect Mid-Atlantic accent.

  • @rogeralsop3479
    @rogeralsop3479 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    How interesting.