I think you should really try and trend surf this new series, it could bring a lot of new eyes to your channel. Not sure what you'd analysis besides the obvious (the accuracy of the show ofc) but I'm excited to watch this video and hope there are more to come like it!

@WillN2Go1

3 ай бұрын

Absolutely, I finally clicked on a 'review' of one of the episodes and it was guys just visiting with each other. This channel is so good I'm sure a lot of viewers of the Master of the Air would be really happy to find it. And more details a production can get right the better it is. I wish they'd hired you (WWII US Bombers) as a consultant. (When I was in Japan last year I intentionally selected my hotel because it was in the Asakusa area destroyed in the Meeting House mission. )

@noface4176

3 ай бұрын

He kinda does. When Oppenheimer came out guess who was making B-29 videos. Not complaining though enjoy this entire channel

Love the Clark Gable cameo

@30AndHatingIt

3 ай бұрын

Yeah I spotted that too lol

@greva2904

3 ай бұрын

When he was serving during the war, Clark Gable visited my home town of Kettering, Northamptonshire, a fair few times - to visit a friend who was serving at the nearby B-17 base at Grafton Underwood, apparently. So many people were shocked to see major Hollywood star Clark Gable in town, that judging by the number of sightings, you’d have thought that Clark Gable was single-handedly laying siege to the entire town 😂

@bluecordprecisiongrading2504

3 ай бұрын

I missed that!

I’ve been anticipating this series for 12 years. I’ve always enjoyed the Spielberg/ Hanks franchise because of their commitment to historical accuracy. My grandfather flew the hump in a B-29 so masters of air hits closest to home. I appreciate your research and dedication to this series.

@patavinity1262

3 ай бұрын

Except he points out various ways in which it is totally *inaccurate*

@alitlweird

2 ай бұрын

I’m curious to know why HBO didn’t want to pick up this series.

@josiahbrown7258

2 ай бұрын

​@@alitlweirdI read something a while back about it. It turns out that HBO actually may have lost a lot of money on the Pacific. At the very least it was in no way the same money maker as Band of Brothers. As the show went into preproduction, execs at HBO decided it wasn't worth the cost anymore. A key difference for BoB was that it released in the golden age of DVD sales. The only other way you could watch was via rentals. So in the end BoB made tons in sales. The Pacific is also great but by the time it released DVD sales were dropping and subsciption models were the new thing. It didn't have a chance to make back thr cost through direct sales. Shows with this kind of budget are tough to defend financially. Apple Tv is trying to build out a catalog and prestige wih this but most servicss just can't afford this kind of investment. Hope we do get to see more big nudget historically accurate TV.

Another great episode. Wish they had hired you as a consultant to get those details right.

On your last point about showing the German fighter's perspective during the air battle, maybe it was an intentional choice to keep with the bomber's perspectives to portray the chaos and uncertainty of battle. Even so, I think it would have been better and more clear for the audience if they had shown a fighter's perspective. Even apart from the clarity, it would have been interesting to see the other perspective (though something similar is probably coming later in the series).

I love how in detail you check these shows. I understand the shows are entertainment, but a lot of these mistakes would not detract from the entertainment and would be easy to fix with some research.

Another informative vid, thank you very much. Saw a lecture some time ago by a guy who has written several books on the bombing campaign wherein he said that most historians don't mention that after these two raids the surviving crews let the commanders know that they weren't going on anymore missions like that! Outside of the US the biggest venue for Hollywood movies was Germany. Read that Clark Gable was H favorite actor and word went out that if he was captured he was to be brought to Berlin immediately for an audience!! You might not know (two books written on the subject) that prior to US active involvement in WWII the N's had a "reprehensive" in Hollywood to give advice so as to make sure Germany was not portraited in a bad light. Hollywood went along with it, no problem.

@caniaccharlie

3 ай бұрын

So it was kinda like how it is now with Hollywood not wanting to piss off china?

@dukecraig2402

3 ай бұрын

Every bit of that post is nonsense and is proof that just because something is written in a book doesn't mean it's true. Quite obviously you've never been in the military if you believe that the men standing in ranks dictate policy, there's been more malarkey written about the 8th Air Force in the wake of the Schweinfurt and Regensburg mission's that's just absolute fiction, I've caught people claiming that the 8th suspended all bombing operations for months after those mission's at which point I've challenged whoever was making the claim to name the time period that bombing was suspended, because I have a list of every single mission they flew including the dates, units that flew the mission's, number of bombers involved and their targets and I assured them that the only gaps were small and involved mission's being called off due to weather, and as soon as it cleared in a matter of days they flew the mission's, the 8th never suspended bombing operations and the crews didn't dictate policy or determine what targets they'd fly to and which one's they wouldn't. Even more laughable is the nonsense claim that the Nazi's had some kind of an agent in Hollywood that dictated policy as to how they could and couldn't be portrayed, aside from just watching movies from Hollywood made after September of '39 and before Pearl Harbor to see how the Germans were portrayed as not just evil but also as incompetent boobs, such as the Humphrey Bogart classic Casablanca and his next film All Through The Night (released Jan 10th 1942 but filmed before Pearl Harbor) to name just two of the many movies, and there's also the fact that all the Hollywood studios of that time were founded in the silent film era by Jews who were still very much alive and were moguls that wielded serious power in the movie industry, and the thought that they would have allowed a Nazi representative to determine what would have and what wouldn't have been acceptable when it came to the portrayal of them is just absolutely ridiculous. Regarding the book you've read that claims the crews decided which targets they'd go on and which one's they wouldn't I have the sneaking suspicion that it's just more nonsense I've heard quoted from the highly problematic book The Bomber Mafia, written by a man who not only isn't an historian but previous to writing it his experiences were in writing self help books, him and his book have been seriously lambasted by actual historians for getting everything wrong including the usual nonsense narrative that the Norden bombsight was inaccurate along with repeating most of the many myths concerning it and it's use, and for obviously not doing any real research about anything he covered in his book beyond most likely watching The History Channel and the typical KZread videos that this channel is constantly proving wrong.

Just wanted to say these videos are a great companion to the show and your level of research is impressive. One thing that would really boost this, however, is if you stop making personal attacks at the show's technical consultants and instead present yourself as providing the real details behind the show's adapted events. They go together so well and there's room for your channel and the show to synergize. It's critical that we preserve both the facts and the legends of WW2 now that the generation who was actually there is fading away.

I honestly think overall they are doing a pretty decent job. There are definitely some slips ups here and there but hell even BoB and others have those. Loving the show and these vids👌🏻

Thanks for all the research and explanations. My dad served as a bombardier on a Consolidated PB2Y "Coronado" from sometime in early1943 after the sinking of the Hornet CV-8 in the battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. He was assigned to the crew a few months before Pearl Harbor attack, and helped load the B-25 Mitchell bombers for the Doolittle raid.. I found an online PDF of the manual for the Norden Bombsight a few years back, and there are decent mechanical draftings of the interior. But I've never heard any explanation of the aiming of the .50 cal machine guns. GREAT Job! I sure appreciate your research

Great information and very interesting. Note that the Browning M-2 (Ma Deuce) heavy machine gun, is still in use today by the US military. I had read a few years ago that the Army Air Force tried to recruit gunner candidates with bird hunting experience. The knowledge of defection shooting was well understood by upland bird hunters along with waterfowl hunters. The Army had ordered several Remington Model 11s ( This was the same shotgun as the Browning A-5. The Remingtons were made under license by Browning in the US instead of Belgium). The shotguns had short barrels and were all in 12 gauge. Clay targets were thrown from a moving flatbed trucks and the gunner candidates would try to hit the targets from different stations.

What do I think? I think you and Greg are the best - accuracy matters.

Really great explanations of the gun systems. Thank you.

Brilliant explanation....I learned so much in 11 minutes...Thank you...From the UK

High quality analysis, great work.

Another fine video and a gold star for your excellent research. Keep up the good work.

Your videos are a wealth of knowledge. It amazes me that for a series that took so long to develop the effects shots seem rushed with a lot of cut corners

Excellent analysis as always.

wow, what a great video ... looking forward to your analysis and attention to detail about airmanship, comms, formation flying, ground crew engineering, bombing, et al ... ... many thanks.

Amazing attention to detail, as always.

Thank you for the great insight on the series!!

Outstanding work. Well researched.

Great explanations! I like your attention to details…👍

Thank you for all of your videos and your efforts to be technically accurate.

Very informative video you go into a lot of detail and pick things out that shouldn't be there in the Masters of the Air..well.done mate 😊😊😊

@WWIIUSBombers

3 ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

I think it’s unfortunate that 80 years after the war, not more effort was put into showing some of the German pilots and their perspectives. We’re gonna get zero. Even the battle of Britain covered the German and perspective to some extent.

Delighted i came across your excellent analyses before 'Masters of the Air' was broadcast. Perhaps a long-form review of 'Memphis Belle' is in order?

Thanks for another detailed video.

Another great video, thank you.

Here's the question I have and this video showed it: the large number of fighters in the field of vision coming straight for the nose. My impression on Hollywood is that they always pack too many items in the field of vision (just look at the ships packed together in the 2019 movie Midway. Everything I have read about distances between Japanese ships is alot more than what was on screen.) Although the formations look ok, the incoming planes don't. I have never seen combat footage taken from the perspective.

@thomaskositzki9424

3 ай бұрын

Not a direct answer to your question, but a comment on "Midway". It is made by Roland "I'm still 9 years old in the head" Emmerich. Nothing and I repeat nothing in that movie is anywhere close to what the battle of Midway has looked like. Consider every flight action scene, every play scene, every deck scene, just the entire plot of the movie plus most of the technical details a collection of clichées, acrade game "knowledge" and pre-puberty ideas of what war is like.

@NM-wd7kx

3 ай бұрын

Your problem is that it becomes incomprehensible on screen, telling a story needs smaller distances & fewer actual characters to be shown or the viewers lose track of what's going on. Imagine watching a fly on a window & that being the scale of an attacking fighter or consider how many coworkers you have & how many you could naturally introduce in a 90 minute film

@thomaskositzki9424

3 ай бұрын

@@NM-wd7kx Nah, that really isn't the case with Emmerich's "Midway".By keeping historically accurate distances between ships or displaying correct loadouts on planes, nothing in the way of storytelling would have been lost. He is just a lazy child. I am a WW2 military nerd with 30 years into the topic and I YEARN for a realistic movie on the Pacific carrier battles. What really went down is often just so harrowing and mind -boggling, it just simply doesn't need any Hollywood-action. There were a thousand dramas worth telling and none are. P.S.: Funny enough, a 90's Sci-Fi-Show called "Space" or "Space 2063" took the drama of the Pacific war and transferred it to a Human-Alien war scenario. Aside from the low-budget and a lot of 90's cheese, that show is absolutely worth watching. It is very unique in it's story and atmosphere. Some truly harrowing stories. Still gives me goosebumps right now.

@vladimirpecherskiy1910

3 ай бұрын

Yes, they want to impress viewer by intensity. Naturally it is really hard somehow so put an events of like 7 hours flight to part of one episode. But as a result despite been really historically accurate on factual level, that LOOKS like not a real thing, but typical Hollywood.

First time viewing your channel, excellent!

Thanks again - fascinating detail. It also reveals the considerable skills necessary to being an effective gunner. I watched about half an hour of the first episode of Masters of the Air, but didn't find it interesting (or indeed comprehensible - very difficult to hear the dialogue - at All times!) as a drama - but I may just skim through to watch the combat parts of the show.

This is really informative. thanks!

The turrets move way too fast in some of the tracking shots. That's just one of the many problems I have with the combat scenes in this show.

There are some great WW II training videos for bomber gunners on YT. Nice supplement to this video.

Oh man, thank you - I learned SO much!

Next, we can talk about the error of the special effects crew in making all the tracers for the Americans and the Germans the same orange color. It's the "little" things!

Thank you for incredible information.

Excellent video 👌

Thank you. That was great; tempo a little fast. My father was a tail gunner in a B17, 8th AF. He never spoke much about it, other than he shot down 2 Germans.

Great video

That was informative. Thank you, I feel like I just completed gunnery training...

you would of been an amazing consultant for a show like this!!

Good stuff! Thank you!😀

I came across this channel because of Masters of the Air (just like many others I guess 😉). Have seen only a few videos, but it seems like good content 👍🏻 Watching the clips of the show prompted me to ask myself were the manually aimed 50 cal and the M1919 (I think) even a sufficiently effective weapon to defend against enemy fighters? I imagine leading the target correctly in 3 dimensions is quite difficult.

How often / likely did turret gunners bullets zip past their target and hit other bombers? ...do you suppose? Or is that documented?

Did they ever film the attack on the bombers for later analysis or did they rely on interviewing the crew for details?

Fascinating vid and a new sub! Thank you for making it. Having loved both HBO's previous WW2 series BoB and TP, I had mixed feelings about MotA as some clips seemed to go OTT in showing the chaos of the air battles. The scene that's shot from the navigator's perspective as he looks out of the front window and sees half the B17s being shot down, dozens of fighters streaking past, the bomber crewman falling through the air a hitting the wing of another etc. felt completely unnecessary as, until that point, the show had done an OK job of portraying the war in the air to that point.

@87mini

3 ай бұрын

I agree, the view of the rain of wings, tails & people, on top of being unrealistic, was pretty silly and over the top. Would have made a better dream sequence for some crewman's nightmare.

One detail not shown in the rear ring sight is that there is a pair of fine wires, inside of the small center ring, that form crosshairs. I bought a couple of these sites from a guy on E-bay over 10 years ago, or else I would never have known. I found it interesting how they were used to range their targets.

did we all like the MEMPHIS BELLE movie?

@johnflo-grif2639

3 ай бұрын

Yes, I liked the movie.

@gibson617ajg

3 ай бұрын

I can't remember how many times I've watched Memphis Belle, it's well into double figures. 15-20 easily.

Is there any documentation of post-war analysis of friendly fire between bombers in formation? Seems like it would have been very common.

One thing that has bugged me is the speed of the ball turret rotation. If the turret is only capable of a full 360 degree in 9 seconds then a rotation like the one shown at 9:04 isn’t possible. I know it’s a small detail but tracking, leading and ultimately gunning down an enemy on a speed limited device is a totally different kettle of fish, and shows the skill and limitations the gunners were working to. These are moving like modern servo controlled PID movements. Say what you want about “Memphis Belle”, but they did at least get this detail right

Excellent video, thanks for taking the time to create such a comprehensive analysis. Agree with your point re not showing the German perspective; it's always bothered me that there was basically zero enemy perspective in BOB and the Pacific (a little in the latter). Interviews with German veterans clearly illustrates the terror they felt in flying into such an arsenal of fire; experiencing that via some first person shots would have been awesome. The de-personalisation of the enemy by never showing them as human always bothers me in these shows. War is human v human, not human v machine.

Yes that is Clark Gable at 4:11 but it isn’t a movie still. Gable enlisted in the USAAF in 1942 and went to the air gunnery school. he was 42yo and the biggest star at MGM. He flew several bombing missions including one’s where AC had WIA and KIA. When word of this got back to MGM they pulled strings and Gable ended up being commissioned. He remained in the USAAF Reserve until 1947-age 47. Basically a star as big or bigger than Tom Cruise who risked his life in combat for love of God and country: Fun fact Gable was Hitlers favorite movie star and he offered a reward of $1,000,000 to whomever captured Gable alive.

@victorboucher675

3 ай бұрын

Jimmy Stuart ...

@frankm2588

3 ай бұрын

In the great book "Mission: JImmy Stewart and the Fight for Europe," the author quotes Gable as saying to Stewart as he was shipping out, "you know you're throwing your career away?" And Stewart replied, "I know." Later Gable became a door gunner and the author is of the opinion that the brass did not want to risk the King of Hollywood getting captured by the Germans.

@Dog.soldier1950

3 ай бұрын

@@victorboucher675 do you mean Jimmy Stewart? He enlisted after personal flight training in 1941,age 33, and pushed aside the studio’s concerns to deploy in 1943. He lead numerous missions over occupied Europe and retired as a USAF Reserve GO in 1967

@b3j8

3 ай бұрын

Be interesting to see who of today's Hollywood actors would have gone to War back then. Of the bunch Tom Cruise immediately comes to mind.

@frankm2588

3 ай бұрын

And of courst Stewart did not throw his career away, he came back and made "Wonderful Life" and his wartime experiences made him a better actor. He made a point of never speaking of them. It was said that his parents almost did not recognize him since the stress had changed him so much.

Excellent. I will probably watch the series but I’ll be armed with low expectations. I am British and strongly jingoistic, over sentimental portrayals are cringe making. BofB and The Pacific had little of this.

@VenlyssPnorr

3 ай бұрын

Oh dear. You're going to really struggle with a particular pub scene in Ep. 2 and then the briefing for Schweinfurt-Regensburg which we're told is by "the largest aerial armada ever assembled" or some tosh (*cough* 1,000 bomber raid *cough*).

Since the adaptation of CGI, my perception has always been that air combat is nearly always depicted at too high a speed. These planes shouldn't look like X-wings buzzing around the Death Star. If you go back to old films where real aircraft are used, everything happens at half the speed it does in newer films.

@fludblud

3 ай бұрын

Thats because older films had the aircraft flying at low speeds and further apart for safety and to allow the camera crews to get the best shots due to the limited film each flight. Real German guncam footage is also recorded at double the fps so pilots can study the few seconds of actual firing time afterwards. In reality this was balls to the walls actual chaos with interceptors gunning their planes at full throttle with often just seconds for the gunners to react. One thing the CGI artists did do was increase the size of the fighters in the shots to simulate the eye focusing on points of interest, otherwise half the scenes would just be looking at specks in the distance if using a plain camera. My main issue with CGI is the overuse of bloom and motion blur to keep with the soft colour grading of the live action shots. Frankly if the whole series just upped the contrast a bit more it wouldve made a phenomenal amount of difference.

How common would it be that waist gunners tracking a German fighter hit their own companion B-17s by mistake?

Fascinating.

My uncle was a ball turret gunner. He had 2 confirmed kills.

Overall, very good. The inclusion of the pursuit curve training is very good. The ball being the safest position of bombers returning with killed or wounded. That is far different that combat losses of aircraft or of vrew bail-outs by position. I don t know if those studies were conducted after POWS returned or notations were added to MACRs. By June of 1944, you are correct that G series do.inated the B-17 force having been in production since August, 1943. However few uncamouflaged G series arrived by March as the olive drab planes were still plentyful in early June, 1944. I haven t studied when the majority switched but June would be a close appoximation. I didn t know that the gun tips were gas deflectors, however the chin guns are also found with the change. My last remark concerns the K-3 sight in the A-1 top turret. Which gun sight required the higher domes (3,4,5,6) or said another way, did the curved domes house a later sight?

Not related to this topic but I was amused by large parts of B-17’s blithely floating past in one episode, including heavy engine nacelles.

Was the ballturret detachable, like it happened in the movie, when they had to get rid off every unnecessary weight over the Mediterranean sea? The ballturret gunner couldn't use the sitting/cushion type parachute what fighter pilots used?

@87mini

3 ай бұрын

Yes. Part of the recomended belly landing prep was to drop the ball turrent.

It's going to get odd when the later episodes feature no B17Gs, just silver B17Fs.

@David-ic4by

3 ай бұрын

I’m not following the series but what is the justification for such a chronology?

Regarding D-Day (05:32), you may also have noticed the geographical error. The planes are flying west to east (left to right), which means the camera is looking north. So the sun should be behind the camera! I can't remember where, but I read that they adeded the sun for the visual effect - so why not just reverse the shot, so the sun is in the right place?!

7:27 Given that the auxiliary sight is deployed, it could be that the illuminated reticle is not working. But most likely it was omited to give the audience a clearer view of the incoming fighters.

Is it me or the 50 cals in this mini serie sound very very weak (so are the bomber engines) compared to the Memphis Belle 1990 movie? Quite a let down in my opinion... As usual, well put together video and information. Salutations du Québec!

Would like more information on engagement ranges to pass onto warthunder, if what i got from the video is the gun crews engaging at 1000 rear to 600 yards on the sides their current engagement us nearly half that.

keep 'em honest buddy, they shoulda hired you for the show!

A friend with whom I used to ride motorcycles had a *"CHECK SIX!"* label in 1.5" tall bright yellow letters on the bottom of his windscreen. Early in his riding experience he'd been rear ended while stopped at a light The reminder was made for him by his wife's father who had flown Corsairs over Korea.

Agreed with your last comment. Really slow moving action scene showing an attack

Masters of the Air should have hired you as a consultant. That's what I think!

@jeffscott405

3 ай бұрын

Oh please

Aiming behind the attacking fighter, what a great idea. And indeed the forward speed vector of the bomber is imparted to the bullets leaving the guns. I just do not understand how these guys corrected their aim: < 2s bursts, practically no tracers. How was gunner training organized?

@don_5283

3 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/qo6LucF8lsyuoMo.html

Some of the inaccuracies could be due to inconsistencies in both historical images and surviving B-17s. While it has been some time since I've seen a B-17 up close, I do remember seeing at least one that had the sight posts on the turret weapons. As for the inconsistencies in historical images... there are some that have them, however it could be that these were guns that were replaced in a hurry just prior to a mission, and the ground crew didn't have time to remove the post. Assuming the bomber made it back, the gun would likely have the post removed by the ground crew. I am aware that under normal circumstances, the plane would be given a complete once-over once it got back, and any issues that were identified would be handled before the bomber went back out. However, due to the attrition rates, it could easily be surmised that a bomber that made it back with a few holes in it and few problems could be hurriedly repaired and sent back out with a different crew on the next mission since it would be better to send a bomber up that's in "Alright" shape and have a full-21 ship wave, then to send out the wave under-strength or delay the mission.

Damn, they dressed well AND they had great typography back then!!

In real life only one crewman was wounded in the real Memphis Belle.

4:12 Tv shows and movies usually avoid showing any 'heads up display' accurately as they think the stupid viewer will be confused or have an epileptic fit if they see anything cool like that.

The show looks great from what I have seen, and I will watch it soon, but I have to ask...did they really blame LeMay for the Regensburg force taking off? In reality, they had to take off or they could not get to Africa in daylight, and LeMay was ordered to go ahead by Brigadier General Anderson, right? I do not want to be a rivet counter, and I can understand why LeMay is a more infamous person to blame, but I know it was not LeMay's call and I just want to make sure I am not getting the wrong impression since I have not seen the whole episode. I figured this would be an educated place to at least check my facts. Thanks in advance for any answers.

@PelicanIslandLabs

3 ай бұрын

You can also ask that question on the Unauthorized history of the pacific war channel: Review of Masters of the Air Episode 3

@iKvetch558

3 ай бұрын

@@PelicanIslandLabs I may do that...though I do not want to copy/paste it too widely...I have already made similar comments elsewhere. But thank you for the channel suggest...I will take a look. 👍

@nickdanger3802

3 ай бұрын

Per page 168 of The Mighty Eighth, LeMay was lined up and prepared to take off in fog to be in Africa while there was still enough light to find the field. There is no mention of Anderson. "Bomber Command then uneasily signaled for the start."

@iKvetch558

3 ай бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 OK...then in theory, if it was Bomber Command that gave the order, then it would have been given by the man at Bomber Command who was in charge of the operation...which was Anderson...or somebody in the chain of command above him. It sounds like that confirms what I thought, which is that LeMay was ordered to take off...is that how you read that too?

@iKvetch558

3 ай бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 OK...so the order for LeMay to take off did come from Bomber Command...either Anderson or somebody else in the chain of command above LeMay...sounds like that confirms it was not LeMay's choice to go. 👍

Nice work. Since the M2 barrel was interchangeable, I thought that you might get front sight beads on guns even if they were not needed simply based on barrel availability. However, examining photos on all three volumes of Freeman's Might Eighth series, I found numerous pictures of flexible gun positions without front sight beads (especially on B-17F flexible nose mounts) and NO pictures of turret positions with front sight beads. Further research showed M2 aircraft variants with a front sight mounted on the main gun body vice the barrel. So it seems that while you might see a flexible mount without a front bead sight, you should not see a turret mount with one. Subtle point but interesting.

Showing attacks from an enemy point of view would have been a good idea, but it might throw off the viewer's perspective. The way they have done it, you know who you are rooting for. There are some gun-cam footages of rear attacks by luftwaffe fighters and at those apparent relative speeds the effects of sustained and accurate cannon fire are devastating. That may be a feature later on. A LOT of the series' initial fighter onslaughts are done at high relative speed from the front. The luftwaffe pilots were experienced and accurate, before they were replaced by greener pilots. These speeds make for dodgy tv.

Well, dang, now I'm confused... I thought I watched something saying they took the chin turrets off the planes they used in Masters of the Air because they wouldn't have had them? Maybe I am confusing it with the making of The Memphis Belle?

Dziękujemy.

@WWIIUSBombers

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the channel donation. I needed to look up PLN currency. Nice to see the channel has Polish viewers!

@snipe1973xxl

3 ай бұрын

@@WWIIUSBombersI really appreciate the work you put in your channel, it's a great source of information, I've learned many things from it. Keep up the good work!

Lots of good information. Sure wasn't safe being outside when bombers were going over. Everyone shooting at each other was putting out lots of hurt. I've never seen any interviews where anyone would talk about a bullet zinging around.

@pondking2801

3 ай бұрын

It wasn't safe when the fighters were overhead either. In the Battle of Britain, civilians had to watch for casings ejected from the fighters in addition to the bullets and bombs themselves.

I am loving the series so far! I’m sure filming an air war is much more difficult and expensive than a ground war. People are complaining about the CGI but we don’t have dozens of b17’s and 109’s to use and destroy! This series is as good as they can do with the budget they had. BTW the most spent on a tv series ever. Hanks and Spielberg we trust❤

@SpitFir3Tornado

3 ай бұрын

When people complain about CGI it's because it's bad, not because there is CGI. The CGI in this definitely does not look amazing generally (although a lot of people are saying it looks terrible, which it does sometimes but not very often) considering this is one of the most expensive series per episode ever (not the most spent on a TV series ever by far, Rings of Power was almost double this) so it really is not fair to say they did what they could with the budget they had as if it they were struggling. And even so, they made the choice to show so much CGI in the series. They could be spending way more time inside the bombers (which I would actually prefer) rather than constantly cutting to exterior CGI shots, showing ground CGI shots, etc. I am generally enjoying the series, but I think it is more than fair to point out some flaws in it.

@vitamaltz

3 ай бұрын

@@SpitFir3TornadoI can’t put it any better than you have. Well said.

@Tank50us

3 ай бұрын

@@SpitFir3Tornado Personally, I don't really have an issue with the CGI. What I take issue with is the crowd that claim that the film could've just used real planes instead... which was workable around the time Memphis Belle was filmed, but it isn't now. The few B-17s remaining are going to be closely guarded by their owners, and aren't even the correct model of B-17 for the early parts of this series anyway (when they'd be Es and Fs, not Gs which are what's available). Making matters worse is that there aren't very many BF109s and FW190s even remotely air worthy, and the last thing their owners want to do is risk putting their planes in high-G maneuvers that will rip them apart. It is far safer to use CGI at this point, and far more practical as well. One thing CGI is getting right is the speed of combat. I've seen some tote Memphis Belle as being better, but those people forget that those planes aren't really flying at their maximum capability for safety reasons. They also slowed the pace down for the cameras as well. The same was true when Top Gun was filmed. If they filmed at real speeds and distances, you wouldn't be able to see much of anything. Using CGI, the fighters can be screaming in at the speeds they would IRL. And it actually helps ramp up the tension since you know these guys only have a few seconds to engage the incoming threat before the guy is out of their line of fire.

@SpitFir3Tornado

3 ай бұрын

@@Tank50us I've never heard anyone claim it would be feasible or even naively suggest they should use real planes. That it would be cool and it's a shame they can't? Sure, heard that plenty. And again, it isn't a "CGI or no CGI", there is no such thing as no CGI. It's just that some of the CGI in the show does not look very good. Overall it's fine, but there are definitely moments that look goofy and pull me out.

Agreed - fair attempt but some annoying errors creeping in. Sloppy? Decisions made to make things looks better? I suspect they left the B-17Fs in use longer in part due to them looking more elegant - the G's chin turret was uglier in many ways. But perhaps just the extra cost and time to get it right was not considered justified as few viewers would even notice... Is it just me or did the attacks seem to be too fast? Actual footage seems to indicate a slower pace. A head on attack would take about 5 seconds from the 1000m engagement range to passes the target B-17... if my maths is right. In the scenes it seems far quicker than that.

Short bursts of fire with the M-2 would not prevent 'cook offs'.The M-2 fires with an open bolt so 'cook offs' would not happen. Short bursts would help with barrel life and save ammunition. Nice work I had wondered what the gas deflectors were for.

@WWIIUSBombers

3 ай бұрын

Per APO 493, Dec, 1944 20th bomber command document titled, "combat crew manual" on page IX-9 states, "protect your own airplane and your formation from cook-offs. When you are not tracking or firing and there is any possibility of a cook-off, stow your turret where it will be safe. This is a document you can find on the net. Google search "Combat crew Manual".

@frosty3693

3 ай бұрын

@@WWIIUSBombers Manual might be wrong, or disingenuous, unless those M-2 fired from a closed bolt, unlikely. Was the same message sent to fighter command, as the fighters used the same gun, with some differences?

@skepticalbadger

3 ай бұрын

The M2 absolutely did (and still does) fire from a closed bolt. RAF .30 Brownings were modified to fire from the open bolt, maybe you're thinking of those.@@frosty3693

The closing and passing speed of front-on attackers seemed way too slow.

Funny Irony is they may have left the Optical sight out because it seems too sifi for WW2, even if it's not. Or only 12 people know about still... eh hem. If they do a B29 series (unlikely, burning Japan to the ground one city at a time will not go over too well) then they could have the Optical site seem realistic. I thought they used pedals like a bicycle to rotate the Turrets, even that Controler seems very HiTech for the 1940's.

I won't start the series until my waterfall rockets + the Ta 152 are ready for combat ✌

The still image at 3:22 is of CMOH holder "Snuffy" Smith, the first enlisted person to be awarded the CMOH. The description of how he earned it on was one of the most hair-raising things I've read.

👍 👍

You said: "The ball turret's crew member is one of the safest" but you only look at B-17s that returned. Is there any data for destroyed B-17s and captured crew? My point is, there is survival bias in your data. The ball turret position might not be the safest if a B-17 gets shot down: -the ball turret gunner doesn't have a parachute on him -he might need help to get out of the ball turret, hard to do when a B-17 spirals down

I be like the series so far, I’m not going to compare to anything previous from Spielberg and Hanks, you can’t, it’s aerial combat in WW2, not much flying around, but my only gripe is the way they’ve portrayed the Luftwaffe, the a/c are manoeuvring to acrobatically, especially ep.3? 109s/190s weren’t that agile!

I wonder if they left off some of the parts of the gunsights because they made it look too high tech. If (no offense) just a guy is able to look at the documents and see exactly what they'd be using and when, and what they looked like, it's impossible that the filmmakers couldn't be able to get details like that right. I'm overall feeling kinda mid on the show. I'm enjoying it but I feel like it expects you to already be very familiar with the story of the air force. Like in episode 3, if you know about that particular raid then there's a ton of drama from the first moment, but if you didn't know the significance of the name, it doesn't really do anything to really make it clear that it matters much other than killing off a bunch of people all at once.

They still fucked up the 12,7 AN/M2 ROF. That pisses me off.

7:11...so there was my playstation 4 controller haha😅😅😅

While it would be interesting to see the fighter's point of view, I do not expect to as that is not the style of these miniseries. I cannot recall one instance of it from Band of Brothers or the Pacific.

@winstons1806

3 ай бұрын

BoB showed the German point of view when Generalleutnant Theodor Tolsdorff gave his famous speech to his German troops. Rank Generalleutnant (Major General)

@Moredread25

3 ай бұрын

@@winstons1806 the Americans were watching him give the speech.

The editing was really way too fast, due to the cgi heavy $ per second penalty.

Excellent video. The issue of accurate defensive gun fire is addressed on pp 122-128 of “Operations Analysis in the U.S. Army Eighth Air Force in World War II”. The claims of the bomber crews of aircraft destroyed were wildly excessive especially during big air battles, understandable as a gunner would probably claim when he saw an aircraft he was shooting at get hit. I don’t see many flak vests or helmets. I suppose that’s so we can see the actors faces. I’ve just been reading a mass of first person accounts written by crew who bailed out. Dumping vests, clipping on chutes and getting to an escape hatch before centrifugal force pins you down was a big issue. More than one crew member escaped death because the aircraft disintegrated allowing him to escape! I’m curious to know when the K3 sights were provided for the waist gunners, it should have greatly improved their accuracy.

I was a little disappointed that they played up the "spectacle" and ended up with video game levels of cartoonish carnage. For example at 27'22", during the slow motion segment, a waist gunner has a clear view of at least three B-17s being torn apart simultaneously, shortly followed by a crew member striking the starboard wing of a trailing bomber. Even at the most intense moments of the Regensburg mission several miles of travel separated each bomber loss, as shown by the Impact after action map. The loss of nearly half of the bombers over the entire mission was horrific, but the filmmakers condensing all that into just a few seconds of screentime was over the top.

@SpitFir3Tornado

3 ай бұрын

Ya, I think the authentic stories are plenty of drama and action enough as well. I can understand not getting every detail right and can even appreciate some artistic license to combine multiple people or stories into one character like you often see in Band of Brothers, but they do seem to just be inventing extra action & drama.

@vitamaltz

3 ай бұрын

I agree, though the airman hitting the wing might have been a retelling of the actual fate of Lt. Biddick’s copilot, who smashed into his own horizontal stabilizer while trying to escape his burning plane by climbing out on the wing.

@stevedavis9466

3 ай бұрын

all of that happened but over a 2 hour time frame. They did not have time to do that so they condense it for dramatic effect. My father was on this raid on the Piccadilly Lily of the 351st SQ/ 100th BG. He kept a diary as the right waist gunner and his entry for AUG17, '43 tracks this scene pretty closely. If you want to see the source material for this episode, read Lt Col Bernie Lay's eye witness account from his CP position on the Piccadily Lily. it was called " I saw Regensburg Destroyed" and published by Saturday Evening Post. It is almost a word for word description of what you see. You can find it online.

Hello, I don't think they'll be including chin turrets unfortunately due to budgeting issues. I read that they had wanted too but Apple nixed that, will try and find the source again!

@skepticalbadger

3 ай бұрын

There is no chin turret on the B-17F which is the variant (correctly) being depicted. I don't know what you read but it was wrong.