B-17 Ball Turret Fact checking - ”Masters of the Air” 5 Combat Clips Historical Questionable Issues
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 04. 2024
- In the Masters of the air series the B-17 ball turrets were engaging German Bomber interceptors in air-to-air combat. The video will deep dive ball turrets usage and features and compare standard practice with the series portrayal. 5 Questionable items were founds an discussed.
- Věda a technologie
Some of the documents shown in this presentation can be found at hangarthirteen.org, under library tab. They provide free downloads of B-17 manuals. They are restoring a B-17. Check them out, lots of good info on their site.
So, you have the gun sights... are you collecting the rest of the plane some day? :)
Always impressed with your dedication to the subject matters. Quite a unique collection of content, given the hollywood theatrics providing interest and curiosity.
Any idea on the accuracy of these analog computers in the ball and top turrets? It seems like a lot of information to literally dial in by hand as planes are whizzing toward you or past you.
I enjoy these B17 videos. I’ve been interested in WW2 history my entire life. My father was on the 2nd wave on D-Day, an uncle was a B17 tail gunner in the 8th, he completed his tour and re-upped as a bombardier in a B29 in the Pacific. I’ve never found much info on his 8th Air Force experience, but there are photos of him and his B29 crew online, plus complete mission docs for all the flights his group made. Thanks.
Good point. One has to wonder, in the heat of battle, did the turret gunners "freestyle" it.@@keithfrausto9526
Two things, I had no idea the ball turret was such a complex weapons system, and I saw so many things in the series that I knew were inaccurate that it constantly bothered me. The characters were not really very believable either. This explanation of actual ball turret operation (for instance I thought they had 'rudder pedals' to steer it) and capabilities was beyond anything I have learned before, and I am a WW2 aviation nut. Thanks for making this video!!!
I'll add that I never knew it was one of the more armored safer stations.
@@macmcleod1188 the ball turret had a casualty rate of 5% vs the waist gunner which had a casualty rate of 16% pilots were just behind the ball turret gunner of 6%
@aahp87 it was one of the safest stations from flak due to the armored door protecting the gunner. However, in the event of a plane going down, especially one that was spinning and/or rolling...it was one of, if not the least likely stations to escape from due to the fact that he had to rotate into position to climb out, then find his parachute that could've flopped around anywhere in the back half of the plane, and then jump...all while fighting centrifugal forces that would be pinning him down
This is exactly what happened to Sgt Martin Hinton (''Babyface'' was not his actual nickname) - he got out of the ball turret but didn't get out of the falling plane.@@hankdoedtman1976
The mute Star Wars interpolation is a winner! No one does understated humor like this channel…
This tv series gave the opportunity to teach the differences between reality and Hollywood.
I ' ve been following your channel from the beginning and Im really grateful for passing on such an interesting knowledge.
I have been intrigued for all related to bombers and their crews . I am from Argentina and went to the United States in '97. In Barnes& Noble in Manhattan,I saw wonderful books about all this but they were way out of my pockets reach .
Now, at 63, makes me fell so good to now that I am not going to die ignoring all this incredible technologies. My gratitude is inmense. Thanks a lot again!!!!
Then it would be a documentary, not a dramatization. Band of Brothers, while being generally accurate, has NEVER tried to stick to 100% accuracy. They're trying to entertain not educate.
BoB entertained AND educated; Masters fails to do this - it is purely drama (and a lot of Hollywood propaganda).
BoB had one or two minor inaccuracies/mistakes; Masters is riddled with them.
It's a shame because Apple TV sold it to us as from the same stable as BoB and Pacific, but they let us down.@@the.bog.
@@the.bog. There's nothing entertaining about historical inaccuracy.
Pretending these lazy errors were somehow deliberate choices in the name of "entertainment" is extremely silly. This is pure laziness and unwillingness to spend the time and money to do things right, nothing more. Especially since they're almost all errors in CGI.
The sight posts goof is the worst, since it's so simple to correct.
Yeah, but Hollywood. They think everyone expects to see iron gunsights on all guns, which maybe, probably most do. That's why Hollywood writers and directors do not actually teach history in school maybe.
They got it right on the models, but forgot to tell the CGI guys!
Agreed
I have absolutely no idea where you have managed to find all of this original documentation, but I'm glad you have and are sharing it with us. You must have spent half your life dredging thru dusty boxes in national archives all over the country!
One of my great-uncles was a B-17 ball turret gunner. He was 6'2", barely within the height limit when he joined up. No idea how many missions he flew, but he was hunched over in his back for life after so many hours in the ball turret (and wasn't 6'2" anymore when he left the service.).
Great video as usual. Thank you.
How was he chosen for that position? You'd think one of his shorter crew members would volunteer to trade positions. But, I don't blame them for thinking " better you than me"
@@Legitpenguins99 You would think so, but I have no idea how he was chosen for it. Given the high losses of airman it may have simply been that they couldn't be that picky on size.
A granduncle of mine was 195 cm tall (larger than that) and ended up on a WWI German submarine. Must have used a shoehorn to get inside.
I read the interviews of a couple ball Turret gunners who were taller than 6ft. It was more common than people make it out to be.
For me, IMO the most common myth is the gunner had to be small in stature to even be able to crawl into the legendary belly turret let alone operate it. While the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress Factory Flight Manual clearly lists 6 feet 2 inches as the height limit for the Sperry Ball Turret...
I wonder what height was the most comfortable
@@nametag4277 Most of the Gunners reported it was "snug" no matter what size they were, but still ample room to operate and do their job. They all agreed the real problem down there was just being..."Cooped-Up."
@@Imnotyourdoormat Only can get and out below 10,000 feet (oxygen issue), so they spent a LOT of time in that little space on a mission.
Yup, I've been told multiple times it was always the shortest man in the crew and when I presented facts contrary to those statements I'm always told that I'm wrong.
@@sprprops1 People dont want the truth the facts and reality, and if you tell them the "Real Deal Holyfield" they'll label you "BUZZ-KILL"...They excel at this so much I'm surprised they didn't have the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor in "TORA TORA TORA."
I'm not singling out Apple's series... but damn... Hollywood gets it so wrong. I'm so glad people keep this kind of knowledge alive. I hope someone thinks of hiring you for their next WWII project. It'd be nice to see some accuracy.
Accuracy isn't worth the cost, unfortunately.
Another informative and educational presentation. Thank you for your well documented and beautifully presented scholarship.
Love the technical details as I’m a tech spec kind of guy. I quit watching Masters of the Air after the fourth episode. I know it isn’t a documentary and they had to rely on CGI so much more than either Band of Brothers or The Pacific but it became unwatchable for me. I have tons of books about the air war over Europe and have watched the original Twelve O’Clock High movie dozens of times. Sure there were liberties taken in the other two series but the amount taken in Masters was more than I could take. Keep on pointing out the errors so we can form our opinions.
That’s so disappointing, I have heard the same from others. I was hoping for the best, but at least we still have Memphis Belle to watch.
May I suggest a one word description for your series?
That word would be STUNNING.
Not for MoA
The B-17 is my favorite aircraft ever, and there were some things presented here I never knew like how they range sighted the reticle among other details. Absolutely loved these turret videos!
Thank you for all the exhaustive work you put into researching your videos. Band of Brothers was an excellent series and in compariosn and I thought Master of the AIr didn't nearly come close.
what they didnt know was that the ball turrets actually detached and flew as escort Tie Fighters. how else did so many survived flying into germany.
You are such a nerd and I love it. Thank you! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
My Grandfather was a WW2 Vet with the 37th Infantry Division (fought the Japanese) had a neighbor i knew and spoke to often, Al Viltro who was a ball turret gunner on the B-17 "Milk Run Maybel" he was a short man most were to fit in the turret. He told me he got two 109's.Keep up the good work. These men deserve to be remember. They were my heros as a kid and still are. I knew many of my grandfathers friends. Like Ed Henry an Airborne Ranger who jumped into Holland and Normandy in was captured three days later Behind Enemy Lines. These guys used to give us candy as kids in church we never would have known then they were straight up killers
Amazing documentation. Great video!
FYI, if you can get to Ohio, please try and visit the United States Air Force museum in Dayton. They have the Memphis Bell and Bockscar on display. As well as all the airplanes discussed in these video's. Free admission.
I checked your channel, there is a lot of B-17 but very few B-24 content. I think it is also a very interesting bomber type, would you make more videos of it? I' really curious about the nose gun turret version (H model?) effectiveness compared to the contemporary B-17 forward looking gun armament for example, also the tail turret compared on the two types (effectiveness, field of fire, combat use, experience, etc). - Wow, there is a bit of an answer at 11:34 🙂
Cannot fathom the number of hours you must have put researching this. I am always fully immersed by your content
Another great video. Love it.
Great video as usual!
Exceptionally documented ! thank you
Awesome breakdown as usual
You read my mind regarding the amazing stories episode. Thanks
A very informative video, thank you! Answered so many things for me! Never seen that TV show, never will - not paying for that channel.
Great presentation and fact finding. Thanks.
Well done! These are both highly informative and entertaining. Thank you for recognizing "Hollywood", like 1940's militaries, only has a limited amount of time & budget to "get it mostly right".
Thanks for your research making the best CZcams WW2 bomber channel.
You need to add an outro. The end of your video gets covered up by the thumbnails for the next videos to come.
Enjoyed!
Great stuff!, at 6 foot 2 , I flew at every gun position on board, except the ball turret, I learned a lot watching this ,your fact findings are spot on, thank you.
Are you a ww2 vet???
Great channel ❤
" The intent of this channel is to provide educational videos related to US produced WWII bombers. The material is presented by Keith M. I’m a retired Boeing airframe structures engineer. I have worked on various commercial and military products. I have an interest in all things WWII history and especially the Bombing portion of the conflict.
I’ve been volunteering at a local aviation museum since 2017 and provide museum guest tours of the B-17 and B-29. I also authored and presented the Museum’s 2022 and 2023 Bomber Training class to new museum volunteers. "
If you ever have the chance to view a B17 or 24 at an exhibition, DO SO! Pay extra for a walk through. It is amazing how cramped the entire plane is. I toured a B17& the only place I could stand upright was the bomb bay cat walk. Also, look inside the ball turret to appreciate how tight is it. One thing not noted in the excellent video are the gears & bike chains in the turret. You really appreciate these gunners & the entire crew.
Another great video. Any chance of a source/video for the schematics of the turret on the B-24 and B-17 that you show at the start?
What fascinating information ..just amazing 👍👍
I've always been thankful I am on the taller side...although the shortest of 2 older brothers and my father with my father was 6'5...my oldest brother 6'4...#2 son 6'3 and myself, #3 son at 6'2". Although during discussions with the different services recruiting and ROTC programs in the 80s I was told I was too tall to be considered for any type of fighter aircraft ....yet, if I chose to go through the aviation path I would be assigned to the big birds...cargo, transport, refueling, etc...for whatever reason did not interest me. In hindsight I am not confident that was accurate...learning the different recruiting offices had positions or quotas to be filled in different areas....this was in the mid 80s. Regardless, consider being 5'6 to 5'8'....or shorter...if were part of an aircrew would likely have been in the ball turret which I would have washed out of quickly...If I was around during Vietnam being shorter meant possibly being a tunnel rat.... not certain if there are undesirable MOS or "jobs" that are dictated to be specifically for men/young men shorter than 5'8"....Eitherway, I am glad I am a little taller....I do not know how these young guys endured being in that ball...or sitting for hours as the tail gunner...total misery it seems...
Masters of the Air main nemesis strikes again !
This video is incredible. A labor of love and it shows
Question:
There must have been ball turret operators wounded on a mission that were unable to extract themselves from the ball turret. I’m sure there are a lot of harrowing stories.
The most common story I've heard is ball turret gunners getting hit by cannon rounds and having to be hosed out of the turret at the end of a mission
I’m interested in stories like this too, but this is not a question 😅
I'm surprised that they went to an ammo loadout of 100% AP, rather than alternating AP and Ball. Good vid, by the way.
I accidentally stumbled upon this channel last year and I've been hooked ever since. My dream is to fly on a B-17 one day! If it's not too personal, I'd love to know what museum you volunteer at, my girlfriend and I are always looking for new places to visit!
EAA tours its B-17. Check the website for dates/locations. Yankee Air Force in Ypsilanti MI also has rides. They'll both run about $500 but as one who did it, once in a lifetime and worth it.
Please you you add an end card for around 10 seconds at the very end? After the "like" reminder there's no time to hit the like button. Also, the link video pop ups cover half the video for the last few seconds (EG the whole of error 5), so adding an end card would move these back to leave the video clear 👍
Keep up the great work. Do you have Patreon?
So, the shell casings slwere damaging planes how? Were they hitting planes trailing below and going in their engines?
In addition to "Amazing Stories," the 1990 movie "Memphis Belle" incorrectly shows the ball turret gunner using the foot pedals to manipulate the movement of the ball turret.
I have seen artillery tubes with bayonets... (Squint when you look at the M777 towed piece)
I have always wondered why the RAF/UK designed Heavy bombers (Lancaster/Halifax/Sterling) apparently were never or rarely equipped with "belly gun" defenses. Since the British aircraft were initially designed for daylight bombing it would seem fundamental to provide belly defense. The multiple UT clips of German night fighter tactics imply that if the fighter could locate a British bomber an low/below attack was the preferred and mostly successful tactic. Anyone got any information regarding this apparent lapse in british design thinking?
I had no idea the B-24's {ventral} ball turret was retractable.
on tracers. I read a book written by Tibor Tobak, a hungarian 109 pilot that fought USAAF bomber formations over Hungary in 1944-45. He wrote about tracers coming towards his plane and seemingly turning away in the last moment many times in this book. This goes against the no tracers used narrative here.
There is video here that discus that and shows actual US Airforce documents. I will believe official documents from the era than stories of old guy that might be mixing or embellishing facts.
Left movement of the handle turns the turret to the right and right movement turn sit left. That's confusing, so why did they do it this way?
How about a Memphis bell vs masters of the air video?
Just as a point of order; at 1:18 in your video, the photo of the ball turret shows what appears to be a barrel shroud mounted sight post on the right barrel of the turret. Is it a sight post or what?
It's just a photocopy mark
No, its neither a sight bar or a visual glitch, its a an item (metal tool or part) inserted into the cooling holes in the barrel support shroud, with the actual barrel removed for maintenance (did a max zoom in with a magnifier, can see an item inserted in a top hole, canted and visible thru a side hole below). They seem to be uploading ammo and prepping the turret for a mission, with the right-side gun still to be installed. The ventilated shroud is typically retained in the turret while the guts of the gun is removed for cleaning & repair. Our fine narrator did a video on that previously. At 10:39 you can see a lethal hit on a ball turret, but the barrels are clearly visible. At 10:44 the grinning airman is draped around shrouds without barrels (both guns removed for work) but a good view of the removable muzzle guide bushings. No sights on any original photos, just in CGI movieland. They would be useless anyway, the backup sight is the flipdown on the K-3/4 main sight.
4:54 - I was wondering why the damage numbers of Flak went up - nearly tripled - in the first months of 1944. Is it just because the number of aircraft increased massively or was there an improvement of flak itself?
Pure mathematics, Germans were loosing ground, they were moving flak guns from all around the Europe and concentrating them in smaller area.
Why would they stop tracer rounds? I know there is a reason but even as a deterrent factor having tracers coming at you would be a fear reason to break off if enough tracers were coming your way?? Cheers in advance
So, that is where the Tet drones from Oblivion came from?.
Yeah, had that thought as well. And, the good guys did rig up a drone body with 4 .50-cal M2's!
Great information. I'd love to see a discussion with the people involved in the show explaining why they made the choices they made and how they felt about making choices so distant from reality. I'm assuming these choices were all made to simply the CGI or to make the scenes easier to follow the actors, but they may have just gotten poor guidance from their experts.
Ww2TV did a recent series of videos talking with the writer, head of SFX, their B17/bomber advisor, Don Miller (the author), and a historian based in the UK about the 100th BG. I highly recommend them to everyone watching these, especially the SFX supervisor, the advisor, and the writer, to better understand the challenges of production and why some decisions were made regarding accuracy.
Unfortunately, those videos are long and verbose.
They also gave a platform for a string of excuses; basically, given the amount of time and money they had, they simply screwed up.@@jeffpowers8526
Didn't realise it was armoured
why weren't the B17 ball turrets retractable as is in the B24?I tried looking it up on internet, but it talks about landing gear clearance. I don't understand.
The B-24 with its high wings and tricycle landing gear gives not enough clearance off the runway for a protruding ball turret. The B-17 is a low-wing tail dragger with ample clearance. This channel has demonstrated that even if only one main gear is able to be lowered, a B-17's ball turret will still not strike the runway on landing.
I'd imagine it was because they didn't have to be retractable on the B-17, where on a B-24 they did. The B-17 was a low wing tail dragger, the ball turret never gets any closer to the ground than it is when the plane is sitting still on it's landing gear. The B-24 was a high wing design with tricycle landing gear, and it rotates on takeoff so It's ball turret has to retract to allow clearance for that.
You are so cool
How common was it for gunstations to empty ammo load before landing at base
Used ammo did more damage that the Germans?
Dammmmm, friendly fire?
Instances of damage is a separate issue from degree of damage. If you fly into spent casings and the windshield cracks, or a propeller is struck, that needs to be replaced. Airframe and crew are in no danger, but it is something that has to be tracked.
Why are the controls inverted? It’s so much less intuitive. There must have been a good reason to do it that way
Essentially, the ball turret mechanism is a top turret mounted upside down. However, since the humans inside cannot operate upside down, the sights and controls have to be flipped.
@@SomeRandomHuman717 couldent they have reinvented it to be normal?
Ball turret safe unless bailing
thank you for continuing to point out the inaccuracies that apple generated in the
interests of profit.
Can we all just get over the fact that it is just a silly tv show there will always be a few issues with details... It series is made for the general public not for 3 or 4 thousand people who are self trained experts... So I don't see the point in nit picking something that is only ever going to be a representation of the events... Maybe we should all count ourselves lucky that efforts have been made to get a series like this made in the first place... Food for thought...
It is easy to be negative about all this shyt but why do not look at all the positives....
I never understood why the US never made an anti-aircraft vehicle on an M-18 chassis and using a modified ball turret and an aircraft radar aiming system
Because by the time radar was small enough to do that, they had better guns then 50 cals.
You still say the ball turret is "one of the safest crew stations on the bomber".
However, you only take into account records of bombers that came back.
Most bombers came back, but things could be very different when a bomber was shot down. Getting out of the ball turret, take the parachute, put it on and jump out of the plane is surely not an easy task, especially if your airplane is spiraling down.
Are there any records of crews bailing out and surviving? If so what was the chance of a ball turret gunner in this case?
The numbers are all around here on this channel, I don't remember them exactly but only few percent of bombers did not return to base, out of those bombers only few percent got down fast enough for the ball turret gunner to not make it (bellow 3 minutes) - and arguably in that cases most of the crew would not make it also. Movies and Tv show you bombers exploding and getting tear to pieces fast because people want action. But in reality majority of the bombers were slowly succumbing to the damage and the crew had more than enough time to bail out, dozens of minutes. Watch the rest of his videos about ball turret. And yes, lots of statistic he presents does include bail out survivors.
i wonder why they never revised the ball turret on the b-17 and made it retractable?
Probably space, look at the shape of the B17 fuselage vs the B24. The B24 was significantly taller.
@@SilverStarHeggisist there was space enough.
You might want to leave appropriate time at the end so the video recommendations do not obscure your video content. 👍
You've mentioned the bombers being vulnerable to attack from the 12 o'clock low position, but if the fighter was too low wouldn't the ball turret be uncovered and be able to fire at it? How did the fighters manage to exactly match the height of the bomber? Plus, I know gunners only had a short time to react to head on attacks, but wouldn't bombers flying below the one under attack be able to fire up at the attacking fighter?
In other videos you say that even after adding the chin turret, defense against the 12 o'clock low position remained a vulnerability. Why? I remember you also saying that defense against 12 o'clock high attacks were also at a disadvantage. Was this because of the range of German cannons vs. 50 cal? Was there just not enough time for the bomber gunners to spot the fighters when attacking from head on? Was it just too easy for fighters to hit the bombers from dead ahead?
Your videos are great, but you keep mentioning the vulnerability of the bombers to head on attacks and I'd like to hear more details on why.
Gunners didn't have a lot of ammo. They were trained to only fire on interceptors approaching their aircraft - ignore targets passing by or those engaging other bombers. High & Low are vulnerable because only two guns could track each of those approaches while a sideways attack from the same altitude might have five guns tracking [cheek guns & the radio gun had very limited arcs of fire].
Now compare this to the Boulton Paul turret - czcams.com/video/6wXHnSduf7g/video.html
I love accuracy in movies and tv series but are we not going a little overboard here, with fact checking every episode?.
Meh. It's interesting.
No, this channel is not overboard.
Fact checking is not annal!
As a tragic warbird student for 60 some years its so interesting to learn the smallest & correct details of these aircraft.
Maybe, but I do appreciate the thoroughness of these videos. I'm not sensing any tone of malice in the presentation, just education.
This channel is about technical information, not drama. You must be a "don't bother me with the details" kind of person who doesn't care whether they understand how something actually works.
No
The fact the physical models get bits right while the CGI ones don't is annoying. I can imagine the reasons, different design briefs / different people in charge of the 'vision' modellers and artists facing time crunches etc.
They had four years to make it, so no time crunches.
It is ultimately a production failure.
Star Wars was HEAVILY influenced by WW2 army and air force technology (which was only 26 years old at the time). The Millenium Falcon was the B-29. It had remotely operated gun turrets and a near identical cockpit design. The tie fighter did look like ball turrets. For the influence of the Navy, the star destroyers had conning towers, and C3P0 is modeled after the typical queer sailor.
Gunners perhaps had their own prefered mix of ammo AP tracer i know a legendary lancaster rear gunner did
Sight posts. But no shell casings or links. Bad oversight. 😬🐿
THANKS. Another professional dose of facts & truth. Unlike politics these days.
Well, at least they did better than "Amazing Stories".
Always excellent information. And thank you for making this series even worse.
The more ball turret gunners are featured the worst I feel about tail gunners with their lowest survival rates. Except, pilots, of course.
0:28 You mispoke and said "One of the 9 B-17F model gun stations" when it should have been "One of the 9 B-17F model crew stations".
Thank you. This video is unwatchable now.
Long live baby face ✌️💯❤️
The more I see how many screw-ups there are in Masters of the Air, the more I think they should have adopted the strategy of SAS: Rogue Heroes (2022). At the beginning of each episode it states:
‘‘Based on a true story. Those events depicted, which seem most unbelievable…
…are mostly true’’
Those last three words made it work!
Let's fly a B-52 with Phalanx CIWS glued on top and bottom.
The last gun station on the B52 had a Vulcan 20mm rotary cannon in the tail that was radar aimed.
It was later removed in favor of ECM equipment in the tail, since no one is running up on the bomber for a gun kill since by then it would be too late. B52s would be shot at by missiles long before the interceptor got anywhere near the B52, since the B52 needs to be shot down over a thousand miles away from it's targets for a interception to be effective. Coupled with needing to shoot at them from as far away as possible to maximize the chances of getting a chance to shoot them down without being shot down by the escorting fighters.
I would also note that the B52s service sealing of roughly 65 thousand feet puts it at or above the max altitude for most fighters, so the chances of a fighter diving down from above is nil, making a dorsal turret redundant.
@@SilverStarHeggisist I thank you for your educated take on the topic.
My comment was a joke but i wonder if a loitering plane (manned or not ;)) with anti drone equipment could protect a zone effectively.
@@Koozomec it could, though at the moment it would most likely use ECM rather then hard kills because drones are so cheap that even a good burst from a 50 cal costs as much or more then the drone does.
The task though is even more cheaply done by ground based jammers since they don't have the cost of flying a aircraft.
Шаролет который пострил пин стриял лазаром прикольно.
'Sure-rights!' - them ball-gunners sure must've had some balls over them ball-bearing works, before bailing-out over Berlin, _by bloody _*_golly!_*
warthunder is literally more realistic
I highly disagree with your statement that the ball gunner turret bis the safest place on the b17. Before takeoff you were locked in until the plane landed and the mission was complete. Also do you have any idea how many ball turret gunners were killed by there pilots. If the landing gear was damaged and the there was no way to land safely. The pilot did a belly landing which either crushed the ball gunner, or ripped it completely off the plane. Statisticaly I believe ball turret gunners had the highest Kia in the b17. Bro just that statement alone discredits your entire video, how did you not know this?
I suggest you view the channels," B-17 Belly Landing Ball Turret Crushed Gunner Tragedy: Separating Fact from Fiction" and "Bomber Crew Station Ranking- Addressing the Myth". I believe these videos support the premise that the ball turret was one of the safest positions and the crushed ball turret story is a myth. If you have data that supports your position, please share and I will amend my post.
You weren't allowed in the ball until well after take off nor were you allowed in during landing. And no one locked you in.
You "belive" while he shows actuall statistical data :)
This is fruitless. “Masters of the Air” is not a documentary; it is not about showing what happened in 1943-44. It is Hollywood, and therefore ENTERTAINMENT.
Maybe you should go watch an entertainment channel if you want to see an entertainment review of this series. This channel is about educating viewers on facts, not entertainment. Most viewers of this channel are interested to know how closely the TV shows represents actual reality so they do not get erroneous ideas about that reality. This channel is not judging the entertainment value of the TV series, it is just satisfying the technical curiosity of its viewers. It is hardly fruitless for those who are interested.
It was advertised as historically accurate though.
@@randomnickify HOW accurate? Movies have a budget, and are historical effects going to be pursued down to the level of the rivets in the planes or the pilot’s pocket handkerchief? I don’t think so. Consider another example, the historical accuracy of the movie western. In virtually all Hollywood westerns, the rifle being used is the Winchester 1892 (I acknowledge that there are exceptions, so don’t bother citing them.). If we wind the Way-Back Machine into the past, true authenticity would demand the Winchester models of 1873 and 1866 at appropriate times, as well as the Henry repeater. This doesn’t even consider the fact that many f the rifles being used would be Civil War muzzle loaders, and single shot breechloaders such as the Sharps or Remington, to name but a few. Why is this? Because Winchester 1892 rifles could be had cheaply and were easily obtained. Other rifles, not so much, so that’s what we see. The 1892 looks “Western,” so that’s what we get. Aaaaand that’s Hollywood!
Tons of people watch movies and then think that real life works like it does in the movies and TV
@@mencken8 You seem to be saying having low expectations is a virtue. You know there are also YT channels that fact check the accuracy of Hollywood's depiction of firearms or Western life. It's not because viewers have unrealistic expectations of Hollywood. They well know that Hollywood depictions are inaccurate, so they look at analyses of those depictions to learn what it was really like in the past. You are the one with the most unrealistic expectations if you expect everyone to accepted the limitations of Hollywood depictions without curiosity. Accept it.