Was This Lethal Spitfire Ace Killed by His Own Tactics?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 10. 2023
- Help keep the legacy of Pat Hughes alive and own a piece of his famous Spitfire here with REC Watches! bit.ly/3RIGytj (Use code TJ3 for 15% off!)
This is the story of Paterson "Pat" Hughes - a famous RAF Spitfire ace during the Battle of Britain in World War II. In this video, we follow his life, death, and his mysterious final mission. This was made using the World War II flight simulator War Thunder. Hope you enjoy! Please like, comment, and subscribe. #WW2 #WWIIHistory #WarThunder
Want to fly with me in one of these great WWII flight sims? Join my discord!
/ discord
Have an idea for one of my videos? Submit it here! forms.gle/91xwbGKQsRCNZmwm9
If you want to support TJ3 History and get access to special VIP content, please check out these awesome links!
Patreon - / tj3history
TJ3 History Merch Store!
TJ3History.shop
Follow me on social media for updates!
Facebook - / tj3history
Twitter - / tj3history
Twitch - Twitch.com/TJ3History
Instagram - / tj3history - Hry
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)
4:13
nice story. never heard about Pat Hughes before. Thanks a lot for all your videos.
Thanks for watching! @@tribalpursuit3178
I wanted to bet on BEURLING, Ididn’t know Pat HUGHES. 😊😊😊
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.
not to mention 'pocket rockets' we now call speed. aka pep pills. duh
Your comment was well thought out young man..your a great story teller. Bringing suspense and though
provoking element..yours was the best..
@@Erin-jt9di Thanks, I haven't been called young man for decades now.
Suddenly this cold, gray Winters evening seems brighter and warmer.
correct. It wasn't until a couple of years later that "pep pills" were introduced, which improved reaction time and "motivation" (read agression).
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."
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.
Stanford-Tuck said "Creep in behind him and shoot him up the arse".
“Fills your windscreen”!
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.
Thank you!
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!
I would expect so too. Exhausting and you never knew if you would land again.
My father told me that the best man at his wedding fulfilled a fellow pilot's just-in-case wish. He did it by marrying his widow.
He was glad however that he wasn't flying Hurricanes.
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
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
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.
@@user-fx2sh6pk9u That just isn’t true.
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.
@@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.
He should have been featured in the 1969 "Battle of Britain" movie.
Certainly deserved it.
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.
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.
Some excellent flying and even better story telling. Stay awesome TJ and keep up the great work!
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!
Thank you!
And yet.
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.
Yep!
Yes, that was the job of the armourer. Generally tail was propped up and the guns adjusted hit the same spot on a wall.
Hurricanes could survive more damage than the early Spitfires as they were more robust and more plentiful during the Battle
Hurricane's are tube and fabric, which resists damage better and is more repairable than the Spitfire's aluminium monocoque.
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.
Thanks for watching!
Excellence story and excellent research. Thank you for your presentation.
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!
Awesome!
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.
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.
A fighter command airfield is a greenfield site.
The "runways" are grass fields.
A bulldozer could render it operational again within a matter of hours after an attack.
The Luftwaffe never managed to knock out one single airfield for more than a whole day.
Thanks to the uptick in Aircraft production, we were never going to run out airplanes.
Don't believe this, "it was a close run thing" myth.
Our boys and our allies had balls of steel of course.
They deserve all the respect in the World.
But Hitler had won himself into a strategic stalemate by September 1940.
The Germans had no hope of invading Britian.
Hitler would have lost the war in an afternoon if he'd tried to invade, even if fighter command had been defeated (which it wasn't).
Even Hitler wasn't mad enough to try an invasion.
He gambled everything on a genocidal invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941instead.
We all know how that worked out.
The Germans were never going to win the War if Britain refused to surrender.
And that is what makes 1940 our finest hour.
The only country in Western Europe, to tell the Nazi's "you don't frighten us, now go get f#@cked."
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.
The camera work is truly awesome! Very immersive, feels like a movie!
Thank you!
Camera work? Are you high? You also think the Nazi invasion of France was on television in 1940?
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.
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
Polish pilots were and are some of the finest aviators to take to the skies.
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!
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!
👍👍👍👍🏴🇺🇦
Thank you!!
@@TJ3 You are quite welcome, credit where it's due.
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.
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!?!?!!?!?!!?
Thanks :) getting there hopefully!
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
Lol
I'm sure no one noticed the magic propeller! 😆
Out of all of your videos that I've watched - this one is now my favorite!!!
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.
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.
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...
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
Aw this looks epic TJ! I can’t wait for more spitfire stories please!
Thanks Moonshine!
An incredible story 😲 Excellently told with great cinemaphotograhy 😊👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏😉👍👍 May this Australian fearless brilliant young pilot rest in peace 😔🇦🇺🇬🇧
Thank you!
Using only 303. calibre ammo, it’s a wonder the RAF managed to shoot anything down.
Yeah with 3 planes emptying their ammo at close range on a Ju88 and not seeing it go down tells the story
@@plinkspot8750
It wasn’t until the Spitfire Mark-V they were fitted with Hispano Cannons.
And they had a tendency to jam.
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 …..
@@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.
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.
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.
Bud Anderson..."150 yards is close"...Pat Hughes...Hold my Beer Bud...i'll show you CLOSE🙃
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.
You forgot to mention that "Screwball Beurling" was so mentally ill he was kicked out of WWII.
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
@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.
@@towgod7985 yours is a juvenile assessment of his situation.
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).
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
That was a wonderful story of a true hero. Thank you
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.
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!
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
Don't you mean 1914?
My father served in the Royal Air Force from 1943 to 1965 and even in the 1960's the RAF was still a multi- national force with many Australians and other Commonwealth nationals still serving in its ranks, men known to me as friends of my father.
You did a great job of telling his story TJ, great work mate!
Thank you :)
it just go's to show how deadly being a pilot back then, great Storie
Thank you!
The animation shows Spitfires taking off using full flap! Not possible with the Spitfire’s 90 full flap setting.
AYYYY I was here 7:19 YAY
These are the same tactics used by Eric Hartman, the greatest ace ever.
You are telling these stories so fantastically good in your videos - thank you so much for this!
Another excellent video! I really appreciate the work that you do.
Thanks for watching!
@@TJ3 Your videos are both entertaining and educational making the time spent watching to be well worth it.
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
35:40 that's not Do 17's horizontal, but vertical stabilizer. But overall, this video is great!
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.
50 xards at 300 mph is nearly suicidal, a mere couple of seconds away from mid- air collision with the enemy plane he was shooting at ! Typical mad Aussie, but what a pilot !🇭🇲🇬🇧
What is the story about his Spit from the crash to restoration?
Great work TJ, nicely done
Thanks!
Great Video!..do you know what his convergence was set at? 50 yards ? especially on that 1st kill.
The rec watches project is probably the coolest thing
The bent propeller blades bent back in mid air is absolutely ridiculous.
Props only get bend by contact with the ground
At 19:50 the CG image of the Spit sitting in pouring rain wigh the canopy open 😊
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
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.
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.
You should do a story on Canadian Spitfire pilot George "Buzz" Beurling. Amazing combat pilot and absolutely ruthless.
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)
Excellent graphics/ animation or whatever you call it.
Great job on telling this story
Thank you!
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.
Was the surviving Do 17 crewman interviewed after being captured? Might be an answer in that interview, if a record still exists.
The wing was mad weaker to ACCOMMODATE not "accompany" the wheels.
15:20 So one of Pat Hughes' wing men was Bob Doe .
.
Another very brave man sadly they have all left us.
Great episode and fantastic visuals. Top notch old chap.
Thank you!
totally amazing watch,love your channel.
Thank you!
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
Thanks for watching!
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.
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.
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
@@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.
Great video, TJ, thanks so much for your great work ! Just a friendly tip: in RAF usage the squadron was called "Two - three - four" squadron, not "Two thirty four" as in American military usage. (Another example: the famous 617 Squadron - the Dam Busters - was "Six-one-seven" squadron, not the "Six hundred and seventeen" squadron. Just saying, no critics meant.
...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.
...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
...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
@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.
@@robertbruce1887 ...it was REALLY, REALLY pretty and absolutely fit for purpose
They have you repeating propaganda from the war. The Hurricane was more vulnerable and had the worst kill ratio of the BofBritain.
Great vid. Great narration.
Eric Hartman was also an advocate of getting in close before firing.
Quite a few American pilots joined the
Battle of Britain too.
Thank you. 🇺🇸 🇬🇧
A fascinating tale from the second world war.
Thanks for sharing the story!
Thanks for watching :)
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."
His guns might've jammed so he went all in to defend London
Possible!
@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
@@jamesTBurkewhat is this garbage? Fan fiction?
Great video!
First rate presentation. Many thanks!
Thank you!
You rock that fedora.
That means a lot. Haha thanks
Great work! Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
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.
Outstanding video 2 mega👍👍
Thanks!
I have purchased 2 watches, one for my son and one for myself! Can't wait to see them!
That's awesome! They should be fantastic!
Great research effort.
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
"the Poles had more Aces than anyone in the RAF" Source for that? Or just more Polish bravado?
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 is quite certain but you are welcome to correct me
@@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.
Usual Polish wind and piss
Astounding story!
Thank you!
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.
💀..Been following your excellent 👏 & competent work for awhile now.. !! Clearly you're doing your homework! Great job !! This must have been a difficult vid for you, emotionally speaking, I mean..! Nvrtheless, your high standards are evident, however.., Either way, this one was one of your best !! .., (kudos, for sharing the spotlight w/ flying officer, "Butch"..!! Nice !! 😉👌..(Keep up your terrific work, man !!)
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.,
Love one but can't afford the price range sadly
There is a good compilation of German gun camera films from WWII available here on CZcams.
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.