My father served in the 15th Air Force. He was stationed near Foggia 1944-45. He was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the H2X ground scanning radar in B24’s. He was apparently in charge of an 8-10 man crew and mustered out as a staff sergeant. He said the units were classified and he had a critical MOS.

That was amazing from Colin (AKA Kelly's History) countless slides full of primary source material, so much new info to digest. Amazing Colin & Woody @WW2TV. Thank you both

@kellyshistory306

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

That was a very special presentation full of in depth analysis and information which was the result of a heck of a lot of research. Many thanks Colin and WW2TV.

Love seeing your young presenters/researchers sweep aside the 'fog' put up over the last 80 years and shatter myths. Great presentation

awsome, awsome. Kelly's heros is got to be one of the most underapreciated WWII history youtube channels. big fan.

Absolutely absorbing - a neutral take on source documents, to be applauded.

I subscribed to Collins' channel a while back it's an excellent channel that does a fantastic job of creating a visual representation of Bomber Command raids. His stuff on the 8th AF is of high quality as well. Thank you Woody for bringing him to your Channel.

Thanks for the lead on Kelly's History! I get a kick out of your pet peeve for a certain channel. Your standard and your channel set a high mark (pun intended) for this type content. Haven't found such academic content anywhere else. I don't know how you stay so consistent.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

I don't go into every day thinking about that certain KZread channel. I'm not on a mission to attack it or anything, but I do bite back when people sing its praises. As I said to the fanboy, find me a single noteworthy historian who references it

Thank you both for this information packed presentation

Frederick Andersen actually flew in the RAF museum’s Lancaster ‘S For Sugar’ on the Hamburg raid.

Great detail and an evidence based argument. Thanks Colin. Learned a lot tonight

@kellyshistory306

Жыл бұрын

Glad to hear.

Great guest and fantastic presentation. Great work to find all these great guests. Signed up for Kelly's History and look forward to go through his videos. Must watch this a couple more times to really appreciated it better.

Superb show. The knowledge of WW2TV viewers is outstanding, and the shows keep getting better!

Gen Hap Arnold was a friend of my great-grandfather, then-Maj Gen (USA) Edward H. Brooks. He and my great-grandmother remembered Hap and his wife fondly.

Great presentation gentlemen thank you. Lot of stuff I didn't know.

Awesome - thank you

Woody/Colin, Thanks for such an interesting presentation. Learnt a lot tonight. Bob

@kellyshistory306

Жыл бұрын

Thanks, was a lot of fun to present. Glad it was enjoyable.

I wonder if the b24 belly turret would have caused some nasty surprises for german nightfighters?

Wow!! This guy knows his onions! Very interesting and informative..

"The technique of attack had been worked out with great care. An advance force would drop flares for fifteen minutes, relying entirely on GEE and ignoring visual impressions in order not to be misled by decoys. Two minutes after the first flares went down, other aircraft of the advance force would start bombing with incendiaries, taking as their aiming point the big square in the centre of the old town. After fifteen minutes the main force would begin to arrive, and would pile down its bombs on the fires already burning. The tactics, in other words, were to be a form of pathfinder/fire-raiser technique; but whatever the Luftwaffe had shown us of these methods in the autumn of 1940 was to be far surpassed. For even if the town was completely obscured by cloud, GEE, it was thought, would ensure that at least one bomb in two found its mark. On the night of 8th/9th March conditions promised well, and 211 bombers, of which eighty-two were equipped with GEE, took off for the great attack. The first wave arrived punctually and duly dropped their flares on GEE fixes. The weather held good, apart from the inevitable industrial haze. Unfortunately, many of the incendiaries were dropped after the flares had burnt out. Scattered fires therefore sprang up, and these seriously misled the main force. The result was that though 168 aircraft claimed to have bombed the target area, the brunt of the attack fell on the Southern outskirts. Many bombs also struck the neighbouring towns of Hamborn, Duisburg and Oberhausen. In the Essen area the local authorities noted the fall of 3,000 incendiaries and 127 high explosive bombs, and reported appreciable damage to engineering works, railways and houses. Krupps was virtually untouched." --124-- Hyperwar Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Vol II

@nickdanger3802

Жыл бұрын

Within Essen there was still Krupps, virtually intact after nearly three years of attack. page 158 Hyperwar Royal Air Force 1939-1945 Vol II

Very good week must have spent best part of a day watching all these presentations .

Colin Kelly has done a tremendous amount of research expounding upon the little known 8th Air Force attempts at area/night bombing. I did read of their efforts at radar bombing, most histories claiming that it was more effective than Colin has proved it was. It's something to think about how today's U.S. Air Force is very much a night capable force. Indeed many of it's operations are conducted at night more often than not. I look forward to checking "Kelly's History" channel.

Interesting show and it pieces a lot of disparate information together that I do remember reading about way back when and the new information is quite revealing. Very well researched, as for nighttime operations it reminds me of efforts by the USN in 1944 and 1945 of Hellcat and Avenger formations on the Pacific Fleet Carrier force, notably upon the USS Enterprise, of training, equipping, and flying nighttime combat sorties against the Japanese. I think the USAAF was just doing its due diligence in investigating and doing trial by combat in combat operations at night. The USN did it flying off of aircraft carriers and that sounds patently insane because they were trained in nighttime landing operations! Which they did do under combat operations off of the Marianas, maybe Leyte Gulf, and definitely Okinawa.

As an extra, it was a unbiased presentation, in the end of the day the object was to win the war, there was no other choice, it was never going to be nice and the guys deserve deep respect for what they did

Good call on the Felton nonsense in the sidebar too, Woody. He's an embarrassment.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

Thanks, but he clearly has his fans

@Splattle101

Жыл бұрын

@@WW2TV He does, but I don't agree with his click bait or the way he appears to make some things up from whole cloth. I particularly disliked his use of wartime Nazi propaganda posters to illustrate the Soviet massacre of Polish officers at Katyn, without noting or drawing the viewers' attention to the provenance of the images. Just unethical.😡 But enough of my bitching. Great show today.

@halflifeapc8777

Жыл бұрын

@@Splattle101 really? Damn I had no idea he was peddling fabrications. Elaborate if you can please

@Splattle101

Жыл бұрын

@@halflifeapc8777 Where to start? For a nice easy example, have a look at his video on Lancasters bombers being the 'preferred' bomber to deliver the atom bombs. It's pure bullshit.

Not sure on the methods for KZreadrs to get on your channel (mean literally, not as a criticism) - but you should get the guy from WWII US Bombers for the next air warfare week. He's very knowledgeable, accurate. Lots of tasty primary source documents.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

Is that Keith Mann?

@ME-xh7zp

Жыл бұрын

@@WW2TV Yup

@kellyshistory306

Жыл бұрын

Hi ME. I rewatched the video to look at comments and I saw you raise a number of good points. I'm sorry I didn't try to address anything, I found it almost impossible to follow my slides for the presentation and pay attention to the chat so I never saw your comments. You mentioned the USAAF's definitions of accuracy during the war, and admittedly I could have done a better job of explaining what I meant by area bombing or precision bombing, which was me coming from the "popular culture" angle of how people think of it today. I wasn't talking about it form the angle of what the 8th Air Force or USAAF considered to be precision or area bombing. In fact I'm not too knowledgeable on that and if you have any sources you'd recommend reading I would be interested in learning more about that. Similarly, you mentioned something about the "precision bombing narrative" being created from outside the US Air Force in the 60's, 70's and 80's. I may have spoken about that topic a bit more than I should have given my limited knowledge, and the few sources I had that mentioned the topic. I'm now a bit regretful of some off the cuff remarks I made about the topic. I was curious as well if you could suggest something I could read on what you were talking about, since I hadn't heard that stuff before.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

@@kellyshistory306 You were bloody great Colin

@ME-xh7zp

Жыл бұрын

@@kellyshistory306 Naw you good. Man in the arena and all that. Gonna take me a bit to get to these in the requisite depth I don't have easy immediate primary source access anymore.

Thanks again Paul for a great guest bringing to light new factual information. As you pointed out in your closing comments, we may have many books on a subject but if they all used the same sources(sometimes limited, sometime incomplete) then you are in essence reading the same story again and again. We tend to look at our library and if 10 books say the same thing, subconsciously we think that there are 10 completely independent sources saying the same thing and therefore it must be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is kind of funny that we as people don't like to hear rhetoric but when somebody challenges what is in essence our rhetoric we get upset and push back. I encourage people not to get too single minded when looking for an answer and I often see it when reading the comments and chat. People will argue a very specific point as if it were in itself the total, complete and only answer. Strategic bombing is a case in point where people will argue a "single" purpose behind it when in fact there are many. Was it the destruction of German industry? Was it the disruption of German industry? Was it the disruption of the German economy? Was it the attrition of Luftwaffe pilots? Was it the disruption of delivery of raw materials? Was it reallocation of resources from the front line battlefields? etc etc etc. The answer to all of these questions is YES, yet we want a simple, single pat little answer so that we can win an argument in an online chat or in the pub. I had to fight this when I was doing aircraft accident investigation, was it the weather, was it the aircraft maintenance, was it training, was it pilot error? In many cases there were seven or eight things that contributed to an accident but people, especially those in charge only wanted a single answer so that a single simple solution could be implemented and they could get the accolades for implementing said solution. Press On Paul with the channel and bringing guests who are eager to share their research with the world! Cheers! :)

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the wise words Paul. People can be very entrenched when it gets to aircraft in WWII

The finale of "Memphis Belle" seems plausible enough?.....

In war there’s what you want to do and what happens. We abandoned a tank, 11th ACR Vietnam, and called in air strike to destroy it, Air Force said it was destroyed. We towed it in the next day, fixed engine and it was back in action. It is very easy to talk about , but all those men are dead that flew the missions. Probably not enough pickle barrels in Germany. 8th Air Force suffered 26,000 dead.

Here is what I am not hearing in your videos on this subject. The British did area bombing. In this they used target indicators of various sorts to move the aiming point inside a city around for the Main Force Bombers. This was supposedly an attempt to destroy German industry by random effect. When the weather was overcast the Americans would use the radar bombing aids to strike discrete targets -- not an area --- but the radar bombing was so inaccurate it might as well have been area bombing. Steven Zaloga in his book "The Oil Campaign 1944-45" says radar bombing by the 8th AF got 5.4% of the bombs on the target, which was a factory or facility -- not an area. Starting in March, 1944 Spaatz wanted to hit Oil targets. He had Eisenhower's leave to strike Oil targets on good weather days. This was Daylight Precision Bombing and it had decisive effect. "As early as June 8, two days after D-day, Spaatz had taken advantage of Eisenhower's generously loose rein upon the strategic bombers to order both the Eighth and the Fifteenth air forces that the denial of oil to the enemy's armed forces should be their primary aim. German aircraft and armaments production were specified as secondary targets, with ball bearings to receive particular attention. Even with Ike's generosity, diverse calls upon the heavy bombers, including Crossbow raids as well as support of the ground forces restricted oil targets to 11.6 percent of the American strategic bombers' efforts in June, 17 percent in July, and 16.4 per cent in August. Yet this restricted effort cut the amount of aviation fuel produced for the Luftwaffe from 156,000 tons in May to 54,000 tons in June, 34,700 in July, 17,000 tons in August, and 10,000 tons in September--while the Luftwaffe had consumed 165,000 tons in April alone. Production of other petroleum products dropped in similar disastrous proportions...” --Eisenhower's Lieutenants, Russell Weigley, p. 379-80 "The impact of the raids was apparent almost immediately...May's attacks were a prelude to punishing raids over the succeeding months. After a two-week pause, during which Allied bombers supported the invasion, the Americans staged a series of new attacks that knocked out 90 percent of aviation fuel production, so that by the end of the month total production had sunk to a miniscule 632 tons." -"A War to be Won" p. 328-29 by Murray and Millett The Americans did cast out a lot of bombs over Germany with little effect but they always sought precision.

I did read somewhere, I think I've got it right, an American airforce general said, the Brits bomb an area precisely, we bomb with precision over a wide area

The RAF tried to concentrate their 'area' attacks in both time and space in order to cause concentrated, severe damage that overwhelmed civil defense. The bombers aimed at an aiming point, and the planners tried to get the stream through the target in the minimum time. A master bomber adjusted the aiming point to prevent creepback and avoid decoys. By the end of '43 Bomber Command was achieving levels of precision comparable to daylight raids.

@nickdanger3802

Жыл бұрын

"The US was now 'wading in' as Harris wished; but, far from adopting his strategy of area bombing, the USSTAF was beginning to achieve results which Bomber Command could only envy." BBC Fact File : Big Week 20 to 25 February 1944

@bobfinkenbiner2539

10 ай бұрын

but the word "precision" was not what most people would define as precise. the definition of precise is: "Exact, as in performance, execution, or amount; accurate or correct". so when we look at the stewardship of the USAAF and the immense amount of taxes dedicated to their "mission", one must question the integrity and honesty of the brass. they fudged the targets to avoid the unpleasant truth.

@anthonyeaton5153

3 ай бұрын

The RAF carried out precision attacks on area targets, the USAAF carried out area attacks on precision targets. That settles it.

would love it if you would add close caption.

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

I'm so sorry but I just don't have the time to create and add accurate ones. But the automated ones do a reasonable job

"...we've got loads of point 5 ammo and a teenie weenie bomb and we drop the bugger from so high we don't know where it's gone."

@nickdanger3802

Жыл бұрын

"American escort fighters shot the Luftwaffe out of the sky." IWM RAF Bomber Command During The Second World War 1944

@nickdanger3802

Жыл бұрын

"The US was now 'wading in' as Harris wished; but, far from adopting his strategy of area bombing, the USSTAF was beginning to achieve results which Bomber Command could only envy." BBC Fact File : Big Week 20 to 25 February 1944

"The Fall of Fortresses" from Elmer Bendiner, a navigator in the 379th BG, goes into this issue of 8thAF area bombing as well. Worth the read, though the prose is a little purple at points. ETA: Bear in mind as well that when LeMay, an 8th AF wing commander in 1943-44, took over B-29s in the Marianas in 1945, he quickly and pointedly instituted area bombing of Japan, abandoning Hansell's "precision" approach for low-altitude firebombing. It seems obvious to me that area bombing was found acceptable by USAAF by that time. It seems equally clear that they thought the American public found this more acceptable against Japan than Germany. "Black Snow" is a great book on that aspect of American area bombing. And of course once the results came in, any remaining squeamishness in the upper ranks disappeared. ETA2: By Mar 1944, the bombers were the bait, and what they hit wasn't as important as what the fighters did to the LW fighter units.

Just rebarkable and a brilliant look at the real issues b**** that bedevil us today

Kelly is Canadian, correct?

@WW2TV

Жыл бұрын

Yes

Basically, bomb the primary target if possible. If not possible, bomb something. Given the cost of getting the bombers over Germany, it makes more sense to drop the bombs somewhere over Germany than to bring the bombs home. Obviously this killed civilians. War is hell.

@ME-xh7zp

Жыл бұрын

That's one of the key takeaways - a rejection of WW2 as a "good" war. That's possibly the worst myth to exist in Western historiography. It was a necessary war, but there are no good shooting wars.

@ralphbernhard1757

6 ай бұрын

"War is hell". *So is reality.* You end up with leaders who set you up against other people, you end up losing. ------------------------------ Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books". Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. *Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. A virtual admission that divide and rule/conquer was at the heart of these policies, since it was only nominally or "technically known" as balance of power...* By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is (ahem) *technically known* as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to the rising American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". This "hopping from one side of a scale" (countries) to another, balancing out powers on the continent, is also known, and not generally contested by historians as the "avoid the single hegemony on the continent"-narrative. It was a policy. After 1895, finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insist on signatures or long-term/binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire for the free hand, to address "issues" as they rose. The two powers started "nodding off" each others' conquests (generally agreed upon narrative is that "US imperialism started in 1898, with the Spanish-American War). And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs) *Even as late as 2014, about one in every 3 adult British polled still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".* There are still some 15 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia." So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900). *Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.* Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." EPISODE I: From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron: "... 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was *"standing down and standing by"* to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend. 1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail... EPISODE V: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had the global influence of the Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War". So they had woken up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets. *No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.* Now, fill in the blanks. EPISODES II THRU IV... Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, Washington DC leaders were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®) Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere. After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (frantically busy selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their WW2 communist friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about onto some or other power in order to "balance out" the power of Washington DC. There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old "divide and rule"-games. *All as a consequence of own misguided previous attitudes (policy standpoints) and actions going back centuries* Therefore, as a result of an own unwillingness to adapt to changing realities, their own Empire died.

I have to admit I never heard of 8th Airforce doing any night raids . Simply because as comes up in the presentation lack of training and equipment. Of course the RAF had 3 years more experience. Of course the main thing is it is clear very few US bombers . Used bombsights . Dropping on the leader . If the leader or his deputies missed the target the whole squadron miss . Just the fact of the Squadron being spaced a little or the formation splitting under pressure makes precision almost impossible. The weather etc. The fact might be carrying more bombs and specialist marking techniques. The RAF maybe was more effective than the USAAF . Just not as good at propaganda. Certainly Harris was brutally honest about his intentions.

Last comment I watched a postwar Harris interview he confirmed his friendship with Eakker . Also he was no fool but perhaps to blunt for political gain