Help keep the legacy of Pat Hughes alive and own a piece of his famous Spitfire here with REC Watches! bit.ly/3RIGytj (Make sure to use code TJ3 for 15% off)

@paulreames5851

7 ай бұрын

4:13

@tribalpursuit3178

7 ай бұрын

nice story. never heard about Pat Hughes before. Thanks a lot for all your videos.

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching! @@tribalpursuit3178

@gillesguillaumin6603

4 ай бұрын

I wanted to bet on BEURLING, Ididn’t know Pat HUGHES. 😊😊😊

@JonathonMitchell-ig4bv

2 ай бұрын

I’m giving you us a story about spitfire mh 434 of ww2

A common problem experienced by over-worked pilots suffering from fatigue is slow reactions. While Hughes was used to taking down faster aircraft from close range, dealing with a slower aircraft at close range WITH SLOW REACTIONS likely led to a collision, either from debris, or direct wing to wing contact, severing Hughes' wing. The high g-forces of an impact, or the sudden yaw from his severed wing, could have impacted his ability to remain fully conscious, thus preventing him from deploying his 'chute after he managed to bale out. I would have liked to see the autopsy report or doctors report of his injuries to get a better understanding of why he failed to deploy his 'chute. Sometimes pilots baling out were struck by the upright tail, which led to instant death or unconsciousness, leading to an inability to deploy their parachute. If the chute was partially unfurled, he might have suffered a 'Roman Candle', hitting the ground hard enough to kill him. The reports of a collision from the civilian witnesses should not be so easily discounted. By September 1940, those civilians would have seen numerous dogfights in the air above them, giving them a degree of expertise a normal civilian would not have had. Then again, the alleged collision might easily have been between two other aircraft.

@moss8448

7 ай бұрын

not to mention 'pocket rockets' we now call speed. aka pep pills. duh

Thank you for a thorough, detailed account of a Battle of Britain pilot who well deserved his story to be told. So tragic that he didn't get some rest & medical attention when he needed it. The story of the mascot dog is cute but ended sadly. One footnote: The R.A.F. Fighter Command soon abandoned the peacetime 3 plane Vic formation for the Finger Four formation used by the Germans.. Very inspiring that they found the wreckage of Pat Hughes Spitfire & are proceeding with restoration, there have been some miraculous restorations of Spitfires & other WW2 aircraft of the recent years.

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

the use of finger four or vic formations was up to the wing comd or sqn comd. Some were still using the bloody Vic in Malta in early 1942.

He should have been featured in the 1969 "Battle of Britain" movie.

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Certainly deserved it.

@bobsakamanos4469

29 күн бұрын

He was following the same doctrine as promoted by Sailor Malan and other experienced fighter pilot leaders. Hughes and others knew that the .303s were not very effective and gunsights were not yet advanced for deflection shooting , so getting in close was the only answer. I believe Sailor Malan was represented in the movie though, by a good irishman.

Close range tactics were used by the Aces. Erich Hartmann was quoted to have said "get as close to your enemy as possible and fire."

@SoloRenegade

7 ай бұрын

yup, because you avoid needing to worry about deflection shooting as much at closer ranges, and it's harder to miss a "larger" target in your crosshairs.

@0ldb1ll

7 ай бұрын

Stanford-Tuck said "Creep in behind him and shoot him up the arse".

@chriscarbaugh3936

7 ай бұрын

“Fills your windscreen”!

303s were short range guns, 8 x 303s is like a shot gun. Firing at short range was very dangerous. Bomber gunners can easily nail close fighters. Fairy Battle was a death trap.

Superb presentation with the very realistic animation. Wonderful stuff. My grandfather was a Spitfire pilot in the Battle of Britain, he would never talk about it, I assume so very frightening!!!!

Another theory of Pat Hughes death. You stated he was found without his parachute. Some pilots were known to hit their parachute harness release mechanism too early/by error/out of sequence of normal operations after landing, & effectively jump to their deaths. This was an unintentional consequence of rushing to get out of their aircraft (sometimes in flames), combat stress & fatigue. An RAF pilot whose book I read about the Battle of Britain stated this, he'd done the same, but managed to refasten his chute straps/locking mechanism before he then jumped.

@brianholden2609

3 ай бұрын

The way I heard it was, from a WW2 English pilot who became an ex-pat here is Australia. Apparently the parachute was heavy and uncomfortable especially when trying to run to your plane, because the Chute and reserve hung very low against the backs of their legs. Because of this it became common practice after landing to hit the quick release on the chute and leave it in the aircraft, when scrambled again the pilot would climb into the cockpit and harness up, problem was it became a habit to the point that pilots would when bailing, would, out of habit hit the quick release and exit the aircraft leaving their chute behind. The result of this was that High Command responded by making leaving your chute in the aircraft a court marshallable offence.

Quote "So how many victories did the Spitfire get? By adding the uncounted scores, the RAF and Commonwealth Spitfires scored 5,988 kills. This puts the aircraft just ahead of the Mustang on 5599" RAF Hawker hurricane scored 4009 kills compared to the p47's 3752. The Hurricanes alone downed more Luftwaffe aircraft in the 1st 2 years of the war than any other RAF plane

@user-fx2sh6pk9u

6 ай бұрын

The Spifire also had an underrated Top Speed...with Pilots stating going a LOT FASTER than its rated top speed while engaging Emergency Boost from the supercharger...a late mark Spitfire after ww2 reached the Sound Barrier/super sonic and upon landing was inspected and they found the Wings had been Bent Back from the force...there is a youtube vid about it

@Cramblit

2 ай бұрын

That really shows how deadly and amazing the Mustang was, seeing as how the Spitfire kill count had 3 extra years to rack up those kills over the Mustang, and only just barely stayed ahead in kills.

@thethirdman225

2 ай бұрын

@@user-fx2sh6pk9u That just isn’t true.

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

The Hurricane in no way had that much success. It had the worst kill ratio of the Battle of Britain and that only got worse with time as it was totally outclassed.

@roverM30ds

Ай бұрын

@@bobsakamanos4469 it shot down more kraut planes in the battle of Britain than any other plane. Also it was used from 1939 to 1945 by practically every allied country including the United States. So that's the uk, free french, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Poland, USSR, Australia, South Africa, Rhodesia, Greece, New Zealand, India, Burma, Singapore, Malaysia and Norway. Hence the high kill ratio it achieved. Read up on your history pal, take off the horse blinkers. You're a yank? Must be.

Excellent story. I want one of the watches. Awesome airplane. I can't wait to see it restored. It really bums me out to hear their mascot Butch ran off and never was seen again. War is definitely Hell. The spitfire was a beautiful airplane. It will be good to see it restored.

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching!

@BillyJ244

7 ай бұрын

Excellence story and excellent research. Thank you for your presentation.

Some excellent flying and even better story telling. Stay awesome TJ and keep up the great work!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Good one TJ one of your best so far, that Spitfire sure was a gracious bird! Tragic story actually, Pat sure was one gifted flyer , one can only wonder what he could have tallied had the war lasted longer for him, and my heart goes out for his yough wife being bereaved so soon after them getting married, war is a cruel business!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

@aleisterpook1730

7 ай бұрын

And yet.

Hurricanes could survive more damage than the early Spitfires as they were more robust and more plentiful during the Battle

one pilot seemed to be aware of 303's ineffective stopping power & realighned his guns to converge closer giving him better stopping power with all bullets converging in smaller circle.

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Yep!

Bud was using 12.7mm 50cal while Pat was firing .303 British or 7.7×56mmR !! A huge difference Gosh Also.. If the Nazis kept bombing the air-fields it would've tuned out bad for the Allies, thankfully Goering wasn't that good.

The camera work is truly awesome! Very immersive, feels like a movie!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

@Polyharmacy

7 ай бұрын

Camera work? Are you high? You also think the Nazi invasion of France was on television in 1940?

Amazing video as always. Glad to have been able to help in the recording, and oh man do I remember 25:25, quite a few Hall of shame moments

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Lol

@Aengus42

2 ай бұрын

I'm sure no one noticed the magic propeller! 😆

My dad was in "234" from Jan 1940 to 1945. He was an "Aircraftsman" looking after AZ-K which a copy of is in the Tangmere Museum. He spoke of his pilots who flew AZ-K and "knew" in saluting terms..Bob Doe and Pat Hughes,..however his favourite pilots(maybe he did speak with Pat Hughes)🤔 were Commonwealth pilots as they were friendly,chatty,and easy to get on with. Apparently quite a few of the British pilots were snobby and condescending 🤗. My dad always got upset when he spoke about AZ- K,s pilots who he strapped in,never to return.

Aw this looks epic TJ! I can’t wait for more spitfire stories please!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks Moonshine!

Great fighter pilot aces like Richard Bong used to fire at close range, but firing as close as 50 yards is almost suicidal, as you would surely get hit by a lot of debris.

Using only 303. calibre ammo, it’s a wonder the RAF managed to shoot anything down.

@plinkspot8750

7 ай бұрын

Yeah with 3 planes emptying their ammo at close range on a Ju88 and not seeing it go down tells the story

@Jones607

7 ай бұрын

@@plinkspot8750 It wasn’t until the Spitfire Mark-V they were fitted with Hispano Cannons. And they had a tendency to jam.

@bigjohno242

7 ай бұрын

I think the same ! I suppose the 8 x 303s collectively fired around 160 bullets a second which I would imagine at close range would do some considerable destruction …..

@Jones607

7 ай бұрын

@@bigjohno242 A direct hit on oil (black smoke), coolant (white smoke), or fatally wounding the pilot, reduces the chances of the enemy making back home.

@losonsrenoster

7 ай бұрын

Carrying much more lightweight ammo than the .50 shooters, combined with .303's proven ability to damage lightweight thin skinned aircraft it is a given a lot of planes would be - and were shot down. Give us some more of your uninformed logic.

Great story-telling! I hadn't heard this story before so THANK YOU for the education TJ3. Love the way you have animated, will be watching more of your work! 👍👍👍👍🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇺🇦

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!!

@timstoker

7 ай бұрын

@@TJ3 You are quite welcome, credit where it's due.

An incredible story 😲 Excellently told with great cinemaphotograhy 😊👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏😉👍👍 May this Australian fearless brilliant young pilot rest in peace 😔🇦🇺🇬🇧

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Firing at close range was required for hit and run overtaking attacks, especially on fighters, which can break diving attacks easily by turning... This is not just for the effect of surprise, but because the short window of overtaking really allows nothing else... Gradually, turning became more preponderant as the War went on, because it turned out the target was "trapped" in the turn (rolling out was a fatal mistake), and guns really liked steady targets... The essential part of turning was cutting power to have the inside radius, which gave a steady lead. So you see two contrasting priorities: Speed and Hit and run advocates always talk of firing at point blank range, turn fighting pilots always talk of cutting power to get the inside radius...

@SoloRenegade

7 ай бұрын

short burst, at close range so you just can't miss, and don't give them time to react until it's already too late, and then use your speed to climb or dive away before the wingmen can accelerate to catch you.

@wrathofatlantis2316

7 ай бұрын

@@SoloRenegade Yes on all counts, but the problem with hit and run is that it almost requires, on top of firing so close you get hit by pieces, that the target keeps going perfectly straight... In other words, the target almost has to cooperate (same with the K14 sight: Straight targets only)... Another disadvantage of hit and run is that it disperses the combat area, which is detrimental to mutual support or rescue: Turn fighting protects you from attacks from outside the circle, it keeps your target trapped at a steady and safe distance, for a long target window and many bursts, and on top of all that it keeps you in one spot for easy rescue... Hit and run has so many restrictions, it really is for fighter types that climb well and turn rather poorly, like the Spitfire. The Spitfire can stall itself to shoot (badly) at smaller German circles from the outside, but what you really need is the smaller circle to get real aiming lead. The P-51 could hold on German types (barely), because unlike the Spitfire it could put down 10-20 degrees of flaps: You read P-51 encounter reports and Mustang pilots talk about flaps constantly(!). It really is amazing the Spitfire could not use them in combat just because it had no partial angle notch... Even weirder is that the Japanese Zero avoided turns obsessively, because Navy doctrine was dead set against turns (a recent discovery)... The Japanese Army was different, and Army pilots far preferred, by a huge margin, the Ki-43 over all their other types, scoring more kills and surviving 1-16 odds just by turning without interruption... "We owe our survival to the Ki-43's turns" one Ki-43 ace said.

@SoloRenegade

7 ай бұрын

@@wrathofatlantis2316 "on top of firing so close you get hit by pieces," False, the vectors of attack and debris are different. " that the target keeps going perfectly straight." If done right, they will fly straight, but even if they start turning, it's WELL known how to deal with a turning opponent, and has been known, understood, and practiced, with great success since WW1. The hit and run tactic was THE dominant tactic of WW2 fighter combat, period. It works. All fo US fighter pilot doctrine was built around it in WW2, and all US fighter aircraft were built specifically to fight this way, and pilots trained to specifically fight this way. "Another disadvantage of hit and run is that it disperses the combat area, which is detrimental to mutual support or rescue:" BS made up nonsense. "Turn fighting protects you from attacks from outside the circle," more BS nonsense. it actually makes you vulnerable. my favorite hit and run targets are ones turn fighting someone else. they are the easiest to kill suddenly besides a perfect surprise sneak attack target straight and level. "but what you really need is the smaller circle to get real aiming lead. " you clearly have no comprehension of dogfighting. this type of turning and lead shooting requires IMMENSE skills to do well and consistently, and requires you ALWAYS have the more maneuverable aircraft. Japan chose this doctrine and WW2 and it failed spectacularly, every other nation chose predominantly hit and run tactics. "Even weirder is that the Japanese Zero avoided turns obsessively, " BS nonsense, Zero and Spitfire were some of THE best turn fighters of WW2. Zeroes Preferred the turn fight, but Allied pilots knew this and so avoided letting them turn fight. The Zero was Designed Specifically TO turn foght. "The Japanese Army was different, and Army pilots far preferred, by a huge margin, the Ki-43 over all their other types," wrong, the Japanese army and navy never shared aircraft. The Zero was designed for the Navy, that is why the Army had the Ki-43, as it was designed For the Army. Japan was weird like that. But the Ki-43 was no match for the Zero in a turn fight. The Ki-43 may have scored 16:1, but not against US nor UK pilots. You have some pretty severe misunderstandings about air combat, tactics, aircraft capabilities, reasons why things happened, etc.

@wrathofatlantis2316

7 ай бұрын

@@SoloRenegadeFor the last 30 years I have read or researched more WWII air combat accounts than anyone who has ever lived,, probably by a factor of 10. Rest assured all of the current jet era conventional wisdom is not only wrong for WWII, but the exact opposite of what actually went down. I did not say the Ki-43 had a 16:1 kill ratio, but that it could survive 16:1 odds, which it did. As to the Spitfire being out-turned by FW-190s and Me-109Gs at low speeds, I'll only quote RAF mission record holder (432 missions, 18 kills) Pierre Clostermann: "Legends are hard to kill. One of those legends is that the Spitfire could out-turn the Me-109 or the FW-190 at low speeds. Well that is a good joke." Spitfire I radius was measured by the RAE at 1050 ft vs Me-109E at 880... A near 200 feet difference... The reason for the current absurd opinion on this is a misunderstanding of the relationship between energy and force on prop traction types, notably a tractive interaction between wings and prop, something obviously absent on jets... See my channel for further details, with a lot more videos to come. Check out also the "Zero or Hero?" Video on the Drachinifeld channel, around the one hour mark, to see the latest research on the Zero (from original intelligence archives) and learn why it usually avoided turns, to the point US pilots criticised its non-turning tactics... Yes, historians for 60 years could not even get this basic Japanese Navy tactic right... The impression the Zero often turned is based on US captured airframes evaluations, not on actual Japanese Navy doctrine, or actual combat use... Historical knowledge evolves, and there is a ton of boomer historian nonsense to clean up.

@SoloRenegade

7 ай бұрын

@@wrathofatlantis2316 the japanese tested teh Zero in turns against everything they could, and designed it specifically for turning, and this coming from the japanese themselves, including the designer of teh airplane and its pilots. Not sure where you get your details from but it's not correct. US specifically told pilots not to turn with teh Zero. US doctrine for pilots was NOT to turn fight opponents, in any theater. As a combat vet myself, you should not bas your conclusions on pilot reports of people with limited knowledge and biased views, and who never had the chance to evaluate teh enemy aircraft personally (as in, fly it), and who had Zero engineering knowledge about such matters, and in an era when the art of dogfighting was still being learned and formulated. These were young guys with little experience who saw only brief periods of combat. I have more combat experience than most veterans of WW2, and spread out over more years than a WW2 vet. I know how the memory works, and how little people know compared to what they think they know. lots of myths and misunderstandings originated from pilots in WW2 themselves. Yes, I can find you examples of the P-51 surviving 30:1 odds, or an SBD surviving 6 to 1 odds against zeros, and other aircraft surviving insane odds as well. that is not a proper scientific analysis of an aircraft, as it just means one skilled and determined pilot fought a bunch of inferior pilots. It proves nothing about the airplane. I have studied air combat from one nd to the other for decades. I am a combat vet, I am an aerospace and mechanical engineer who designs airplanes, who holds world records in the space race working with NASA, and also a professional airplane and helicopter pilot, as well as being an armature historian. I have also be offered jobs as an engineering professor and history professor. I have engineering books on many of these aircraft from WW2, and have researched in excruciating detail the likes of the P-38, P-51, FW190, A6M, P-40, F6F, F4U, P-39, and many more, as well as their engines. I also study the history of aircraft development, from and engineering and mathematical perspective, looking at the aerodynamics, performance, etc. understanding the actual math behind how these airplanes work. I can look at random airplanes and instantly start pointing out drag issues, wing design issues, cooling design issues, and more. If you truly feel you grasp the core concepts solely from reading encounter reports (terrible place to figure this out by the way), then answer some of the following. What makes a good fighter, in your opinion? What design characteristics and metrics? What makes a good dogfighter? Which dogfight tactics are superior and why? What was teh dominant dogfighting tactic in WW1? What was the dominant dogfighting tactic in WW2? Why the change from WW1 to WW2, and when did this change occur? What is your impression of the P-40 as a fighter plane in WW2? Which do you think is better and why, the P-47 or P-51? Why did the Germans score so many kills on the Eastern front, but not the Western front? If you faced a Russian fighter in WW2 while flying a Bf109, how would you go about defeating it? How did the P-47 compare to the P-40 at low altitude (below 15k ft)? How did the B-29 gunners score such a high kill ratio? How did the P-40 achieve a positive kill ration against the Zero and Ki-43 in WW2? How did the F4F score a high kill ratio against eh Zero? How did the P-39 score so well against the Japanese early in the war? Show me you understand how and why this stuff works. I also couldn't help notice that your latest response still hasn't addressed at all any of my original criticisms of your terrible and flawed analysis.

I totally forgot how freaking good this channel was. I thought this channel was already at like 180,000 subs! I generally thought that was the number of subs he had! How on earth does he not have more subscribers already!?!?!!?!?!!?

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks :) getting there hopefully!

Great video mate! I’m lucky enough to be living in Muswellbrook NSW Australia, just half an hour’s drive away from where X4009 is being restored. Definitely going to be paying a few visits!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Awesome!

These are the same tactics used by Eric Hartman, the greatest ace ever.

Twenty-one seconds in to the video, the Spitfire appears hurtling through the air, with a good portion of its right wing missing, and all the blades on the prop bent as if it has just landed on its belly. And it's still in the air.

An excellent presentation about a famous Australian BoB pilot. One question I have is why his Spit being hit by defensive fire from the bomber and possibly being damaged enough to cause it to collide with the bomber. While they certainly weren't bristling with guns like a B-17 when he gets that close he is also getting close to the rear guns, plus other planes in the bomber formation would have a chance to shoot at him.

Maybe in Britain it was unheard to engage at 50 yards distance, but in polish campaign it was a common tactics used by polish fighter pilots because it was giving a greater chance to shoot down enemy plane. Polish fighters P Z L - 11 c were already obsolete planes at the outbreak of war ,they had only two very small calibre machine-guns ( 7,65 mm ) ,so to increase velocity of their bullets their pilots had to get as close as possible to enemy planes.

@jamesthomas4841

7 ай бұрын

A method the Poles used in the Battle of Britain. A lot more effective if you have 8 guns and a plane that is actually faster than it's victim

@jcdenton6074

Ай бұрын

Polish pilots were and are some of the finest aviators to take to the skies.

Out of all of your videos that I've watched - this one is now my favorite!!!

@TJ3

6 ай бұрын

Thanks :)

He and Bob Doe accounted for half of the squadrons victories .

The usual 'dis' ing of the Hurricane which was also a good aircraft with a very tight turning circle.

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

The Hurri was indeed able to turn tightly, but then so did biplanes. In every other metric it was inferior - climb, acceleration, speed, dive speed, roll rate were all inferior. It's poor performance made it more vulnerable to attack whereby its wing tanks, radiator and especially unprotected header tank were vulnerable. It was also more susceptable to fires, burning many pilots.

You did a great job of telling his story TJ, great work mate!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you :)

An interesting vid....but a couple of pointers, if I may. The Bristol Blenheim is pronounced "Blennim". Adolph is NOT "Ay-dolf" but "Add-olf" and we never use KP/h in aviation. Knots or MPH (which is almost the same).

Bud Anderson was firing 50cal machine guns, a Heavy gun whereas the early Spitfires flying in the B of B only had 303 guns, basically the same caliber as the rifle as carried by British soldiers, i.e. Lee Enfield 303. the caliber is much smaller than the mustangs 50 cal! LATER spits had 20mm cannon, and some even had 50 cals as part of the gun compliment so, yes, Bud probably thought 150 yards was indeed close bearing in mind the hitting power of his mustang as compared the the small caliber 303 spitfire guns!

it just go's to show how deadly being a pilot back then, great Storie

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

This brought a smile to my face I remember being around that age and having a similar opportunity, a friend of the family was a pilot, through him I had the amazing experience of flying a homebuilt pietenpol and a local stearman. I'm sure these memories will stick with him forever like they do for me!

AYYYY I was here 7:19 YAY

You are telling these stories so fantastically good in your videos - thank you so much for this!

i remember taking down a la-5 from about 200ft, a chunk of it came off and hit my prop completely killed my engine forcing me to bail.. luckily i was in friendly territory.

That was a wonderful story of a true hero. Thank you

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching!

Great work and story, thanks for creating and uploading. For me I think the accidental overshoot/collision is most likely, slow bomber, pilot fatigue, etc. Also I think he just didn't have enough time when he baled out, the shock of the crash, fatigue/disorientation, maybe it was all just too quick and fast to react in time/deploy his parachute.

I question the ballistic AND field knowledge of posters dismissing the .303 cartridge. The SMLE and Remington 1917 are common enough to SHOOT. So is the 8x57S Mauser round comprising half of the BF 109 E armament and the defensive armament on bombers. Put up a sheet of aluminum siding Gas cans full of water and engine oil A old VW engine and put a few boxes of FMJ (armor piercing and incendiary to rare) at the rounds effective ballistic distance into said target. Then post

The animation shows Spitfires taking off using full flap! Not possible with the Spitfire’s 90 full flap setting.

The rec watches project is probably the coolest thing

Another excellent video! I really appreciate the work that you do.

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching!

@cliffordterry2133

7 ай бұрын

@@TJ3 Your videos are both entertaining and educational making the time spent watching to be well worth it.

Great work TJ, nicely done

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Beautiful story. You should look at the story of George Frederick "Buzz" Beurling, DSO, DFC, DFM & Bar the Canadian top gun black sheep of the RAF. The falcon of malta with 31 and half victory. , rejected by the Royal Canadian Air force for a lack of academic school and hated by it RAF superior as it was rebel again military authority and really cocky ,he was send over Malta on suicide fighter defence mission for the RAF again mighty Luftwaffe and survive the war.

@towgod7985

7 ай бұрын

You forgot to mention that "Screwball Beurling" was so mentally ill he was kicked out of WWII.

@michaelhutchins7597

7 ай бұрын

His aircraft was sabotaged; he was doing a test flight and lost his life; He was on his way to fight for the newly formed state of Israel in 1948

@tim7052

7 ай бұрын

​@towgod7985 From reports at the time, Beurling described with relish the injuries he inflicted (telling audiences how his cannon shells had blown off the head of an Italian fighter pilot). IMHO he could've been an undiagnosed Borderline Personality Disorder.

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

@@towgod7985 yours is a juvenile assessment of his situation.

Bud Anderson..."150 yards is close"...Pat Hughes...Hold my Beer Bud...i'll show you CLOSE🙃

totally amazing watch,love your channel.

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Great vid. Great narration.

Great job on telling this story

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

This tactic of getting in close to enemy aircraft was first developed by the Irish squadron commander of No. 1 Squadron, Squadron Leader “Bull” Halahan. He was among the first RAF airmen to discover that the gun convergence on Hurricane fighters was incorrectly harmonized at 400 yards; the first pilots to engage German aircraft discovered that it was almost impossible to inflict any effective damage using the British .303 round at a range greater than 250 yards. This was one of the reasons why his squadron proved to be one of the most effective front-line fighter squadrons that the RAF had in France. Halahan’s best pilot in No. 1 Squadron, Irishman “Killy” Kilmartin, was already close to achieving “ace status” prior to the German offensive on 10 May 1940.

Addendum I’ve shot, with peep sights a 1917!Remington in .303 Into the black at 1000 yards. This is close to the maximum effective range

@WALTERBROADDUS

7 ай бұрын

Don't you mean 1914?

Thanks for sharing the story!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching :)

Going to offer two more possibilities: 1. Gunfire from the Do17 hits the ammo box in the wing, blowing it off at mid wing. This was not uncommon in fighters with wing mounted guns (most of them). 2. Gunfire from the Do17 hits and either kills or incapacitates Hughes at which point he collides with the bomber. Not saying that either of these are more likely than the possibilities raised in the video, just that they are possibilities.

He looks much older then 22. Looking at his picture on Wikipedia he looks in his mid 30s. BAMF. 17 kills no telling how many kills he would have gotten has he lived

Great work! Thank you!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching!

35:40 that's not Do 17's horizontal, but vertical stabilizer. But overall, this video is great!

Great episode and fantastic visuals. Top notch old chap.

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

A fascinating tale from the second world war.

You should do a story on Canadian Spitfire pilot George "Buzz" Beurling. Amazing combat pilot and absolutely ruthless.

Great video!

The bent propeller blades bent back in mid air is absolutely ridiculous. Props only get bend by contact with the ground

His guns might've jammed so he went all in to defend London

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Possible!

@jamesTBurke

7 ай бұрын

@TJ3 if anything this theory would help him look like more of a hero than he already was. I don't know where in England his wife resided but I can see in my mind him cursing for the jam then apologizing to his wife for not being able to come home like he promised before slamming that throttle ahead to take the enemy down

@mrwhips3623

7 ай бұрын

​@@jamesTBurkewhat is this garbage? Fan fiction?

Excellent graphics/ animation or whatever you call it.

Very well done, as usual. Thank you for restoring the history of these extraordinary people. All this machinema you've created was based using War Thunder? As a Mac user and lover of flight sims (which is so and sadly limited for the Mac), I'll have to look into WT... but what I've seen of it always looks arcade, HUD, tail chase view. If there is an all cockpit, realistic flight control mode in the game, I'll definitely put myself into it. Thanks again.

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

It can be more arcadey, but it depends on what mode you use! Sim mode can be quite immersive :) I encourage you to give it a try. Especially if you are on Mac! Make sure to use my link and you can even join the discord and fly with us. Hope to see you in the skies. -TJ

@petebjerkelund5088

7 ай бұрын

@@TJ3 Right on, thanks. Squadron based, multi-player WW1 and 2 is the best. What you've created here from the game is very cinematic and very authentic visually. The rain over the Spits's wing was especially impressive. Atmospherics really make the experience alive, in a sim. Great story telling.

First rate presentation. Many thanks!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Great Video!..do you know what his convergence was set at? 50 yards ? especially on that 1st kill.

Pat Hughes was not killed inside his Spitfire. He bailed out, but his parachute failed to open. His body was found in a garden on Main St, Sundridge. His Spitfire crashed between Sundridge and Bessels Green, while the Dornier 17 he attacked crashed into the Darent River (1 survivor). On 23rd Aug 2008, a memorial service was held in which a plaque was installed near the garden into which he had fallen. This service was also attended by a squadron mate, Wg Cdr Bob Doe. In later life, Pat's widow Kay married three times - and according to her last wishes - was laid to rest with Pat. RIP!! 👍 (See: Shoreham Aircraft Musem - Hughes Memorial)

Most likely the result of a "combination" of close combat, deceleration of the target, and either both aircraft colliding, or the attack AC being struck by debris. This "could" have "also" resulted in the follow AC/Hughes, being struck by debris as well, delaying his jettison from the AC! Either way, one thing IS clear: Following close behind the target, comes with a high risk of Collison or debris strike. -dm

Outstanding video 2 mega👍👍

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Fabulous documentary…your diction / voice is top notch. Yes the early british tactics were inferior. Strategically always go for the bombers. One would expect at such close range he would not run out of ammo so much… but i have never been a fighter pilot. ( my neighbour actually was a fighter pilot in Canadian Air Force… post ww 2 of course… he is in his 80s now, knew “stocky” edwards cdn ace

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching!

The wing was mad weaker to ACCOMMODATE not "accompany" the wheels.

Rapidly heading towards a century ago "lest we forget" there are still stories of the brave that turn up, unknown to the many who owe the few so much.

Astounding story!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

15:20 So one of Pat Hughes' wing men was Bob Doe . .

@davidmcintyre998

7 ай бұрын

Another very brave man sadly they have all left us.

There are some comments about the .303. I'm not a historian but ballistics are inescapable. The .303 bullet isnt that heavy and they are bucking a bit of a breeze comming out of the barrel. The .303 has about 1800 ft lbs at 150 yards without the breeze. These are high Ballistic Coefficient bullets so they slow down fast.

What is the story about his Spit from the crash to restoration?

Was the surviving Do 17 crewman interviewed after being captured? Might be an answer in that interview, if a record still exists.

What an excellent coverage of this story! I was rivetted by this history of one of my country's heroes. Your research is thorough and the whole documentary seems so accurate. Well done. ...which makes the small easily- avoided errors stand out. Like all narrators covering foreign material, you need to check the pronunciation of *every* name. Thames river is pronounced "Temms", not "Tayms". Bristol Blenheim bomber is pronounce "Blennem" not "Blen-hime". As I said, small errors. I find the Thames one quite amazing as it's such a famous river...but they're errors that are so easily avoided in the light of the massive research you undertook for this vid.

...the Hawker Hurricane was the virtually unnoticed hero of the Battle of Britain ...much easier to repair than the Spitfire it could soak up a lot of punishment and sported the same Merlin engine.

@nlumby

7 ай бұрын

...while having control of the air was important, it's often forgotten that any invasion across the channel would be exposed to the Royal Navy which was still a very large and important naval force in the world. I think Churchill understood the value of a good story and used the Air Force as a visible means of maintaining the public's moral

@nlumby

7 ай бұрын

...my father recounted a story of hiding under a hay cart in the South of England as dog fights raged above and he was deluged with (hot) empty cartridges

@robertbruce1887

7 ай бұрын

@nlumby: Good point, the Hawker Hurricane actually shot more aircraft during the Battle of Britain than Spitfires, other aircraft, anti-aircraft fire combined but somehow the Spitfire got the glory.

@nlumby

7 ай бұрын

@@robertbruce1887 ...it was REALLY, REALLY pretty and absolutely fit for purpose

@bobsakamanos4469

Ай бұрын

They have you repeating propaganda from the war. The Hurricane was more vulnerable and had the worst kill ratio of the BofBritain.

I have purchased 2 watches, one for my son and one for myself! Can't wait to see them!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

That's awesome! They should be fantastic!

Excellent lecture👍👍👍

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Eric Hartman was also an advocate of getting in close before firing.

3rd time I've watched this, I really love it!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Woooo! Couldn't have done it without ya!

An impressive presentation.It seems to me also that it was likely a collision doe to fatigue.I saw another fascinating documentory amout another Australian pilot who had perfected the art of deflection shooting.He was an ace,he hated and broke formation flying rules.Rather then ground him for good they sent him with a spitfire to help defend the seige of Malta.He didn't make it through....Could you please concider doing a biopic on the German ace hans joachim Marseille The only person in front of a crowded ballroom who made a joke about the party (hitlers party) to Georing and lived to fly again.

this is what the Polish pilots in the RAF were known for the Poles had more Aces than anyone in the RAF so this tactic worked well

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

7 ай бұрын

"the Poles had more Aces than anyone in the RAF" Source for that? Or just more Polish bravado?

@6XCcustom

7 ай бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 is quite certain but you are welcome to correct me

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684

7 ай бұрын

@@6XCcustom Top RAF Fighter Command "kill tallies" during the battle of Britain. Flt Lt Eric Stanley Lock (English) - 21.5 confirmed kills. Sgt James Harry Lacey (English) - 18 confirmed kills. Flt Lt Archie Ashmore McKellar (Scottish) - 17.5 confirmed kills. Sgt Josef František (Czechoslovakian) - 17 confirmed kills. Pilot Off Colin Falkland Gray (New Zealand) - 15.5 confirmed kills. Flt Lt Pat Hughes (Australian) - 15.5 confirmed kills Flt Lt Witold Urbanowicz (Poland) - 15 confirmed kills.

@BingoFrogstrangler

2 ай бұрын

Usual Polish wind and piss

You rock that fedora.

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

That means a lot. Haha thanks

There is a good compilation of German gun camera films from WWII available here on KZread. It compares the ranges to the target estimated by the pilots (and reported in the combat records) to the true ranges measured from the gun camera footage. The pilots' estimates were almost 2 to 3 times shorter than the measured ranges, I.e. when the pilot claimed he had started shooting at 150m he actually was 300 to 450m away from his target. 50 yards are less than 50m, so maybe this dude was wrong with his range estimates also. Having flown gliders myself, I know how difficult it is to judge distances in flight at relatively small velocities. At 500+ kph it is even more difficult. Shooting at 50 yards is definitely a good recipe for getting you killed sooner or later... Although I still doubt his estimates. A Ju 88 would have seemed gigantic at that speed and range in a fighter's front shield, and the time to evade a collision would have been much less than a second... so maybe he just misjudged the range, making it mor at 150 yards than the claimed 50.

Great video.

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Quite a few American pilots joined the Battle of Britain too. Thank you. 🇺🇸 🇬🇧

Wing guns - only the guns from one wing hits the target most of the time. Worse. The Spitfire 1's guns were so horribly staggered, the outer three went wide. This means only ONE .303 hit the target. Adolf Galland on the Spitfires during the Battle of Britain : "There was a lot of shooting, but very few hits."

Seen an interview with Bob Doe on this battle

Did he use the same tactics as the 303 Squadron of Pols used in their fight over Poland and France in the Year of 1939-1940 Early. And I love your Videos.,

Close range (point blank) shooting was also the strategy of Eric Hartmann, the highest scoring ace of all time (352 kills?); so the statement that 50 yards range was "unheard of" for aerial combat during this time, sounds a bit out of place coming from someone who would seem to be familiar with air combat of the WWII era.

Nice hat, TJ 😎

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Good job

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Thanks!

cmon! lets get 200K!!!!!!!!!!!

@TJ3

7 ай бұрын

Woooo! Haha