Primary Vs. Secondary Sources For WW2 Planes

Just a quick video. I'm doing two things here, first testing out a new microphone. Second, I want to explain why I don't think all primary sources are created equal, not by a long shot.

The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!

Please support this channel:

[Enigma]

Thanks for the shoutout. Still holding onto the dream where I hit a billion dollars and can take a P-47 out for a spin in the morning and then a Dora out in the evening 😅

[andrewlaas]

Excellent…well done, Greg. A friend who taught at Cambridge for many years once said to me “I have always encouraged my students and myself to say about any source…”why was it created? By whom? Because you can be damned sure it was not for the purposes of your research”.

[wwhungary]

Excellent video! 6:17-6:24 "errors or omissions were certainly made in regard to things like mission successes and kill claims" 110% true! Reviewing Luftwaffe claims over Hungary as an example showcases how inaccurate a claim could be despite a large system of checks put into place to remove error.

[Ebergerud]

I'd like to add a bit to the primary/secondary data issue. If one is interested in US fighters in WWII (all services) one must look to the very data heavy book by aeronautical engineer Francis Dean "America's Hundred Thousand" (Schiffer). This book is large format and pushes 700 pages - loads of graphs and diagrams from government sources. Dean also saw to the publication the extremely useful "Report of the Joint Fighter Conference, NAS Patuxtent River, MD, 16-23 Oct. 1944" also from Schiffer. This book contains the minutes of a week long conference of about 200 engineers, test pilots and military pilots (mostly US but with a good RAF delegation) that flew and analyzed every major US fighter of WWII including the Bear and Tiger Cat - no jets. This is about 300 pages and it's striking how much disagreement existed between the various participants. Anyway, this is how the people that made WWII aircraft talked about them with their peers. Nothing like it that I know of. There's also a very important memoir. The head of the USAAF Fighter Project was MG Ben Kelsey. After the war the Smithsonian published his extremely interesting memoir "The Dragon's Teeth? The Creation of United States Air Power for World War II." Kelsey's viewpoint was remarkable and he delves deeply into why the USAAF did what they did - and the reasons do not always coincide with doctrine or ideal war making. A truly great memoir. Lastly, there is "Fighter Tactics of the Aces, SWPA, edited Edward Maloney. This humble looking paperback has an interesting pedigree. As the war developed, the fighter command of 5th Air Force (Kenney's lethal force) began asking its veteran pilots to write up papers on tactical tips that could help pilots new to the theater. 5th AF was a busy place and the book of "tricks and tips" grew to well over 100 pages. It includes entries from squadron leaders and major aces - every "big name" is there (Bong, McGuire, Johnson etc) but some of the contributors put serious effort into analyzing what was useful operational and tactical knowledge. (I remember the paper written by Charles MacDonald was very keen). Anyway, if you want to know what some of America's finest pilots wanted "junior birdmen" to know this is the place. Every book listed above is available on Amazon, although the Maloney book is not there in large numbers.

[jporter]

One of the best military history channels on YT!

[cannonfodder]

As the saying goes, "trust but verify". You got a historians and schollars mindset and that is one of the many things I appreciate about your work.

I practice it a bit when it comes to researching other military aircraft related topics and in the age of clickbait its rather surprising how willfully ignorant many people can be.

[sildurmank]

Hope we see a video down the road about that "one case", so interesting subject that of reliability of the sources, official lies during wartime getting "alive" by themselves and so on. Great video

[olivergs]

Greg, I highly recommend you read "Kelly: more than my share of it all" by Kelly Johnson. It's an incredible book with some amazing information.
It's Kelly Johnson's autobiography, where he describes the thought processes behind many of his interesting concepts.
His description of the P-38 concept lines up really nicely with your video on turbosuperchargers vs mechanical superchargers, as he said that after they lined up the engine, turbo, intercoolers, oil coolers, radiators, and other systems, the whole assembly was nearly as long as a complete aircraft. They therefore added a tail fairing to the rear, and put two of these assemblies together with a wing and a nacelle for the pilot and weapons. In a way, the P-38's basic concept could kinda be seen as a twin mustang made from Curtiss P-37s, and with the pilot and weapons in a central nacelle.

[djbiscuit]

From what I've heard, the P-38 had twin booms to fit the twin engines *and* their turbochargers. Much like the P-47's turbo took up a lot of space, so did the 38's. The best way to fit them in was the twin booms.

All your work and the video are appreciated nonetheless!

[juanordonezgalban]

Enigma's gameplay was great. And I think that taking into acount that primary sources might not be honest is one of the reason that diferentiates you and others as great historians. Thanks Greg!

[christianletzerich]

Good to see you post again, I bet this will be a good one!

[crazylegssw]

Greg is an invaluable well of both 1st and 2nd hand sources.

[Simon_Nonymous]

Sound quality is now perfect Greg - it matches your content at last! With a degree in mediaeval history, and a 28 year career in the police, your discussion was music to my ears. It's about ' how do we know what we think we know, and how reliable is the evidence?'. Off to watch the P-38 video now :-)

[princeofcupspoc]

An excellent discussion of veracity in history (not just military history). The important concept is peer review, in particular, peers who are willing to argue AGAINST said presentation. That is the way that both sides can challenge THEMSELVES, leading to the old meme that "It's always more complicated than it looks." People love simple solutions. EXPERTS always doubt their own views. That's how you LEARN.

[themodernwarfarehistorian]

I was not aware of your channel but I have to say, this video was nicely done and interesting to watch as the debate of "what source is good enough" is often overlooked

[briantincher]

Thank God for Greg. Really looking forward to the series on the p38

[acefox]

Thank you for the video. The sound on your microphone is a 200% improvement!! 👏👏👏👏

[thekinginyellow]

I find it amusing that you feel the need to defend your verification process. I am subscribed to dozens of youtube channels, most of them dealing with science and engineering, and I can say that this channel is far and away the most rigorously researched and documented channel that I am aware of. I really appreciate the effort you make. Carry on soldier!

[fafner]

One thing about aces' autobiographies is that well, they were aces. You read Bob Johnson's book and he describes how easy it was to defeat the P-38 in mock combat while flying a P-47. You read Tony Levier's (not an ace, but a dam good pilot) book and he describes how easy it was to defeat a P-47 in mock combat while flying a P-38. Both good pilots well aware of the strengths of their aircraft and how to take advantage of a less skilled opponent.

[ovk-ihzp]

Thanks for the explanation on sourcing & the up coming video. The Lightning always has been my favorite WW2 fighter bomber, mostly because of, like the P-47, the P-38 was just so damn versatile. If they had prioritized fixing the heating issues & supplying high octane fuel the the ETO squadron, the P-38/P-47 tag team could have started the attrition war in the air with a much bigger bang in late '42 & early '43. But they still should have started using drop tanks much earlier than they did. And I agree with you that the Beaufighter was the least appreciated gem of the Allies aircraft & should get more credit for it's accomplishments than it does.