B-17 Upper Turret fact checking - "Masters of the Air" Turret speed and 6 other issues deep dive
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 03. 2024
- Many of the Masters of the Air episode combat clips show the the B-17s upper turret in actions defending the formation against German bomber interceptors. The video will address the historical accuracy of the episodes by deep dive fact checking the equipment, tactics, and usage of the Turret as depicted in the series.
- Věda a technologie
The amount of technology on WW2 aircraft was amazing, so is the detail of these videos.
I started my bachelors of electrical engineering when 8 bit personnel computers started coming in around 1980 but there were few CAD stations except in very high end areas.
I remember teams of draftsmen who carefully drew and dimension drawings that were then converted into real items by skilled tool makers. Girls that carefully cross indexed all drawings, copied and distributed.
-This style of gyro sight was somewhat awkward to use. You had to track the target to keep cross hairs upon it. You also had to turn a knob to enclose the targets wing span with a circle (that is s stedometric range finder and how range was estimated) then as the sight 'calculated' the target lead the mirror of the reflector displace to move the reticle and range circle which the gunner had to continue tracking as it moved. It was harder than the B-29's GE system which simply added the deflection to the turrets.
-The Germans had a similar system on a large 20mm dorsal turret for the Fw 200C3 with a computing gun sight but they removed it for the Fw 200C4 because it slowed the aircraft down to much and reduced range.
And we are still using them
Even though I pretty much grew up on accounts of WWII bomber combat, these videos are an incredible education.
Movies are movies. Your historical documentaries are fantastic. Keep up the great work.
most of the problems seem to be with the CGI department not getting things strait. The front sight posts are a big mistake since all you have to do is look a a picture of a bomber.
@@MrChickennugget360 Most likely the CGI was subcontracted out and the correct info wasn't given regarding what was needed. Production of any movie or series is super complicated and things get overlooked or missed all the time, or someone in the creative chain decides to fudge the reality in order to enhance the visuals of the actors face - in this instance leaving out the gun shutters so that as the turret rotates the actor's face is seen throughout, which is also why they have their goggles raised. You see similar things in movies where there are lights in space helmets illuminating the face - something that never happens IRL.
One thing I've noticed since the episodes aired was the tracers.
they make the tracers look like gun camera footage. In gun camera footage the tracers look like wavy lines due to shut effects and vibration of the camera (recoil, maneuvering, aerodynamic buffeting...). But we're supposed to be seeing the show from the perspective of the men, not from a shaky gun camera. so they mixed what gun cams show, with what men would have seen for real. Nothing else was treated like shaky gun camera footage, just the tracers.
I've been in combat, seen many tracers, fired many tracers on the range. You can find tons of tracer firing videos on CZcams. they do not look like squiggly lines from a human perspective.
Also, when I was in combat, we also didn't load tracers. when aiming with sights, you don't notice the tracers anyways, and they give your position away. It amazes me how in nearly every war we keep having to relearn to stop using tracers. Wars always begin with everyone using tracers, and guys start not using them. then the next war happens and we do it all over again.
As a rifle squad leader in combat in Iraq I always carried one full mag of nothing but tracers and so did my two team leaders. I also loaded my mags with one tracer round 5th from the bottom. If you know you know.
We were never issued with any tracers at all at any point. I think every army and unit tends to learn different lessons depending on what they're tasked with doing, where, and against whom.
@@mikebrase5161 The 5th from last I understand (let's you know you're close to empty), but why a full mag?
@@davidg3944 as a Squad leader during a fight I can direct all 8 of my guys fire on one point.
@@mikebrase5161 Interesting - thanks for the insight.
Thanks for teaching all the details and complexity of the technology and the courage and training of their crew members.
The engineering and mathematic excellence displayed in the creation of this turret is absolutely mind-blowing, particularly considering the era in which these fine engineers were working on it.
No Internet, no CAD, no artificial intelligence.
They didn't even have telephones in every house.
Television was still considered the preserve of the wealthy.
Cars were rare.
International Air travel was prohibitively expensive.
Most people never left their home counties, never mind their countries.
And yet, these people made things like this ball turret.
Every piece of equipment had to be built to bespoke specifications, with other equipment made solely to make other equipment, and so forth.
The machining work alone must have been astonishingly intricate with simple tools, compared with today's tool range.
What they achieved doesn't get the recognition it deserves, possibly because of the nature of the finished product, but make no mistake about it, what the sperry turret engineers crafted is absolutely incredible.
Inventing mythical ideal man from the past and showing just how much you disregard the modern engineers.
It was the culmination of development by three teams of engineers in three countries, along with other contributions from two for the sights.
Tell me you know nothing about history without saying you know nothing about history
Amazing to learn of all the details in this gun turret. The amount of people who would have been involved in designing and building this turret, the gun sight and all the mechanicals to make it operate. Then once in operations the modifications to equipment and training that took place. Thank you to the producers of the Masters of the Air and their errors no matter how minor so we could all be educated on the proper operation of the upper gun turret. The people who originally did the work on this piece of equipment and surely must have passed by now, would be very appreciative of your work. Thank you.
Well you see the reason there are no gun shutters is because he's a master of the air and so it just bends to his will
With ice cubes for nads.....
The turret rotation speed really bothers me. I feel like seeing a shot of the limited rotation speed could have been used to build tension/elevate stress in making the crew feel like they might not be able to do their jobs when they physically can't track fast moving planes.
Yes, you’re absolutely right, all seven discrepancies are worthy of comment and need to be called out. Your videos are quite simply the gold standard and unmatched elsewhere on CZcams, or on any platform/medium for that matter - it’s a fabulous educational and historic resource you’ve created, and exceptionally interesting to boot. It’s always a good day when you post another - thanks for your dedication and hard work.
Amazing anyone could make the sighting adjustments needed fast enough to hit anything. Thanks for your always interesting dose of reality.
Yeah I'd be curious to know if gunners developed their own rules of thumb or techniques on how to manipulate the fire control systems efficiently. Like maybe setting the elevation to half of the maximum and knowing from experience when to aim high or low. Or if most of the time the tactics were such that they generally had time to be really methodical and precise about it.
If you practice something enough it will become instinctual. Also, while your body is flooded with adrenaline you can 'see' things happen earlier, etc..
@@0sm1um76The few that survived long enough likely did.
I'm not surprised given that humans can play modern FPS games.
I love these 'fact check' videos.
Movies/TV usually seem to make up history as they go along.
☮
I wouldn't say that, they go with the big picture since that is what they are trying to produce, filling in the cracks they will use their own idea's instead.
@@fortunatebum I disagree. Look at the movie Memphis Belle, for example.
They almost completely made up everything about that film.
Here is what they invented:
- the names, backgrounds and personalities of ALL the crew.
- the mission she went on. They made it out to be a slugfest. In reality, her final mission was a milk run.
- the 'party' before her final mission
- the press coverage of/after the mission.
Basically, almost the entire film is BS outside of the name of the plane and the plane used was a B-17.
And I could go on and on about huge inaccuracies of many historical films.
Some films are fairly accurate - like Oppenheimer apparently was. But most are fairly bad to awful in this regard. Like 2023's Napoleon.
☮
@@McRocket Look at Masters of the Air for the opposite example. Overall it is very accurate to what actually happened. The major historical inaccuracies are technical things that arent important whatsoever to the big picture.
Uncle was a gunner in B-24, did his 25 missions & came home. Sent to B-29 unit &mastered remote gun system so was made an instructor. Never talked about his combat missions. Too bad advisors couldnt correct errors in series
I don't understand why every war movie and show has so many inaccuracies. Their budgets are massive. History is dramatic enough already. There is no need to make anything up for effect.
Think some of these deficiencies were made by some of the post production teams not being as go as other teams. The decision to have the gunner not wear goggles was probably to show his face so that audience would better identify with the character.
@williamlloyd3769 yeah I suspect as least some of them are compromises they know they're making for the sake of the movie.
I have wondered that since forever. Plus you get praise from the nit-picking historians who love that stuff.
@@Roddy556"Nit-picking historians" make up a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of paying viewers.
edit: Have you ever seen "Patton?" Very inaccurate, thoroughly beloved by audiences.
Because in the end, 100% accuracy cost more and may not be as entertaining.
Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I really enjoy your style of videos. What's most amazing to me - besides your thoroughness and attention to detail - is your revealing of the various legit sources of information - the handbooks.
My only criticism is that your videos are way too short. If you're holding back, please don't! If I may be so bold: give us a few 'long-haul' episodes where you can do a lot more ruminating and commenting. You must have a lot of ideas about history that you've gleaned from the time spent researching, that you might want to share in a longer-form video. Maybe a series on some of these handbooks, and stories about the design and production of this specialised equipment. Would love to see a video about "Get that Fighter"!
This reminds me of a phenomenon called the "Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect". Gell-Mann is a physicist who was always annoyed, while reading the paper, at news reports in his area of expertise because he knew were usually wrong or inaccurate based on his own professional knowledge. Then it dawned on him that he would then turn the page to some other article on another topic, and develop amnesia over his previous annoyance, assuming *that* report was accurate. The lesson is nothing in the news, or in screenplays or special effects shops, can be considered reliable factually and it all has to be thought of as unserious entertainment.
At this point, fire the entire historical research team and hire this channel.
At this point they already fired.
Knowing people who work in this role in film making, they often know what is right and advise on it, but the director is under no compunction to take that advice.
Neither Spielberg or Tom Hanks care about historical authenticity and they never have... it is what it is.
I don't mind any of the errors, and I am grateful for all the nitpicking because it's an excellent way to learn.
You have your own computing gunsight? That's amazing. This is the best video I have seen on the subject.
Another great job fully supported by period references. You do great work, sir.
My Dad was a tech sergeant/top turret gunnery B-17G out of Fogarty Italy., 15 Air Force. in the late 1944. He flew 35 missions. He told be on several occasions that he had tracers every 5th round, most of the time.
It's Foggia, pronounced as Foja, not Fogarty [there's no such Italian place as Fogarty].
For what its worth, my father, a 8th Air Force B17 pilot, always reffered to the upper turret as the "upper local" turret. He also said when the upper local gunner was firing forward, the muzzle blast would pound him into his seat.
I’m absolutely loving this videos with primary source evidence and research. Keep them coming. Glad to be a nerd on this
Dad was a top turret gunner on a B17 and he told me they wereasked to destroy the Sperry gunsight before crash landing if they had the time.
Great job on sweating the details!
Much of what is missing is because it would affect the visual and post production.
It may seem silly, but Directors do not like extra items between the camera and subject in action scenes. They have to have the ball turret, so it will be there, but most realistic items will be stripped. That is why no shutters, nor charging wires.
Part of this is it have more of an affect on shots that you might think, thin lines and moving metal pieces can cause weird patterns in post production or reflections that must be edited out.
Plus, they really do not care that much. This is because films are made as to your average person's expectation, as opposed to reality.
If in Episode 7, there were no tracers, there would have to be an additional scene where the reason for no tracers is announced, otherwise the average viewer will think there is an error.
Most people do not know a firearm has to be charged to get a round into battery, so cables will just confuse them. People will wonder "why are they there?" are they for communication?
What a historian will view as a detail, a filmmaker will view as a distraction from the elements of the film, such as foreshadowing. If charging lines were included and ever focused on, people will expect that it affects the film, such as one breaking and a plane shot down because of that.
Well put! Balance in all things. It's kinda fun to get nerdy and nitpick but complete accuracy would be boring or confusing to most people. Every time a naval movie comes out there are always comments like "the ships are too close!" And inevitably the rebuttal is "yeah because accurate spacing would result in vague dots on the horizon."
The only nitpick I would've like had been the gunsight. Most people don't realize that the sperry gunsights and the B-29's gun stations were advanced for their time. If they're adding the CGI of the plane I'd think it'd be easy to add the lines.
Thank you for bringing this up! Filmmakers also focus on evoking emotions from their audience. Having the turret cluttered up with authentic parts may distract the viewer from focusing on the actor's performance and action of the scene which is occurring rapidly. I look at shows like this as entertainment first and less for accurate portrayals. Documentaries and manuals are best suited as accurate sources if a viewer would like to dig deeper into how things really should be.
@@thefitlifechannel2021 I do agree. What annoys me is that they use 'historical accuracy' in their sales pitch to prospective movie goers.
We know, but at the end of the day who does it benefit? Not the veterans. Not the POW's, so what good is it really if you aren't gonna tell the truth? Oh that's right greed.
Very nice video. My grandfather was a belly gunner in a B-17 in the pacific 345th Bomb Group 499th Bomb Squadron 5th Air Force. He also flew in B-25 and I have his training log, it shows a couple of flights with a pilot named Doolittle.
Thank you. You are not being nit-picky at all. Keep it up.
Very informative! There was a tremendous amount to get right in a series like Masters of the Air, and for the most part I think they did a great job, but your research if very valuable for us they really want to really want to whole truth. Thank you!
Thanks for all of your videos. The items you brought up are worthy of noting. I am glad you did.
My uncle Donald Vaughn was a tail gunner and flew 35 missions. He would sometimes tell me stories when he was drinking. These videos gave me a whole new insight to what he went through!!!!!!!
Very informative video. I did pick up the rotation speed, but not the other issues. Keep up the good work.
That's so much to take in.
Thank you for your Herculean efforts!
My Dad was a B17G pilot with 36 completed missions. He stated that when that turret fired its guns that “it was very loud!”. You can see by the schematic in this video that the pilots were really close by.
I think the lesson to take away from these amazing videos is that the whole relies on the sum of its parts. You look at a B-17 or B-24 and think "Wow! What cool aircraft." without really thinking about the immense complexity of making and using these machines. I admit to being one of them, and to say my eyes were opened is a huge understatement. Thank you for expanding my understanding.
Really good content. Amazing historical documention.
Man that series was such a gift for you.
Great video as usual!
I would really love to see you do a comparison of the different manned turrets on US bombers. Like the b-24 Emerson nose turret vs the b-17 Bendix chin turret, or the Martin dorsal vs the sperry, etc.
Thanks for explaining this so well. My grandfather was a B-17 pilot with the 413 Sq. As a firearms nut, I was always curious about the mechanics and function of the turret and asked him about it when I was a teen. Never got an explanation like this. Thanks
I've always thought that the top turret is where I would have preferred to be posted, but I had no idea how complex it was. As another commentator said, the technology in these 80-year old aircraft is amazing.
I do enjoy the nitpicks!! They had a lot of technical advisers so perhaps next time, they will do better! Keep up the great work!
I am blown away learning of the technical complexity of a gun turret. All this in the 30 years since someone figured out how to coordinate a biplane's forward facing gun(s) with the spin of the propeller to avoid shooting off the prop! Amazing!
Very informative video, thanks!
Outstanding video and presentation
Excellent teaching video
I leared a Lot in just a few minutes...
Thanks for taking the time to make this
As a fan of 12 O'clock High , never noticed the details
It occurs to me that to be qualified as a WWII aerial gunner you need to be able to pat your head, rub your belly while jumping up and down in blinding sun shine....really...to be able to track an approaching high speed aircraft, mess with the reticule adjustment, be aware of friendly aircraft in the back ground and THEN fire for effect...amazing!
Good stuff. I learn a lot from every video.
Very informative! Thanks!
great analyses and those old Boeing manuals you have are priceless. The CGI of planes move too fast too, in all directions, including falling off the sky, its very unreal. In Nolan's Dunkirk, the use of large RC models more closely mimicked real life, keep up the good work!
Your explanation of the Sperry ranging adjustment procedures just blows my mind! I'm imagining myself trying to sight and adjust an attacking fighter's range as it turns and speeds straight at me firing rounds striking the plane... my adrenalin is racing through my veins as my pulse is throbbing in my head and my heart rate is pegging out at over 150 BPM (about the same speed as Neil Armstrong landing on the moon). Meanwhile, I'm trying to adjust the range before firing?! The mental and physical toll it took on these men every mission is unimaginable!
Great video!
I have to say, thats awesome technic.
Many thanks for the Video :)
I've enjoyed these fact checking series. I would love you to take a look at other movies and fact check them as well, The B24 scenes in Unbroken, The Memphis Belle both offer a lot of content to review! Keep up the good work!
I've always wanted to know what processes the gunner had to follow to actually operate the top turret of a B-17, but could never find anything. This post finally shows me what I wanted to know. Thank you.
Good job
This video contains an impressive amount of research in its production. The “Masters of the Air” series was produced by Hollywood. The motivation and ultimate goals described are incommensurate, the first being the determination of historical fact, the second being the production of entertainment. QED.
Wonderful work.
Excellent work. I love the live demo in the lab. The TV show is great, but not perfect. It is doing its job in stimulating discussion of this sort.
I did catch some of these. I've never seen the sight reticle, so I would not have caught that. I noticed the screens for the guns were missing and that was bothersome. Wasn't aware of the tracers being eliminated during the latter part of the war. There were a lot of things that you pointed out that I noticed. A big issue for me was the absence of P-47s, P-38s and British fighter cover. There could have been a nod to them. Especially, the 56th Fighter Group and a mention of the Zempke Fan, for instance. This would have been significant for bomber crews to know and account for during missions.
Thank you - During some of the earlier missions in the show, they did have escort from the 56th FG. In fact, IIRC, Zemke's group did have dogfights with German fighters and downed something like 8 of them before having to turn back to England. I'm clueless as to why this wasn't really even mentioned, because it would have underlined the issue of allied fighters not having the range to escort them all the way to their targets.
@@LuisSoto-ho5fwMaybe, they'll do another series about the fighter pilots.
Well done sir. Well done.
Well done!
Great job. Thanks. The muzzle sighting posts have to be the most obvious gaf, but I missed that one. I was just too distracted but the turret spinning like a top!?!
Love your input.
Imagine a museum where there was a turret you could climb into and then give a try fighting some virtual targets. That'd be cool!
Now that is an excellent idea.
Great research. Keep up the good work 🇺🇸
Nice work. Probably had one 3D model of the gun barrel that the used on all CGI sequences so you always see the post.
The Sherman with a sight post almost made me spit out my beer!
great job!
wow. that is a wild piece of equipment.
Interesting how its a lot harder to get away with artistic license in media about air combat than it is in ground combat. Much more complex and we wrote pretty much everything down.
Great video...👍
There used to be an arcade game that used the WW2 aerial gunnery trainer film loops. It was cool because it was footage of an actual fighter plane flying an attack profile on your bomber. Simple bell and counter to record hits.
Good job!
Good eye. My father was a flight engineer and a top turret gunner on E's in the Pacific. From Pearl through the Solomons Campaign.
The information was very interesting about the top turret and they could have put some of that in the series.
Great explanation! I image most of the errors were cinematic choices, particularly the lack of the slot shutters (enables a better shot of the gunner). The two strange ones were the randomly adding on posts to the barrels while omitting the reticle in the sight. That's bizarre and seems like it detracts more the cinematic experience.
Another great video - It dumbfounds me that so much effort goes into just about everything except realism.
Movies have become comic books.
the fact they wasted time adding in bead sights with CGI to the gun barrels really blows my mind. they went out of their way to do that, for no reason at all. They wasted very real time and money on that pointless addition. makes me wonder who told them to do that and why?
they probably just reused a model of one of the waist guns and stuck it in the turret
@@EPICROBOT1247 that's a good thought. you may be right.
Been watching your dry videos for a long time, Hanks and Spielberg should have done the same but chose to rest on their BoB series. Thankyou, for highlighting some more of the many failures to represent history in MotA...
What really bothered me in the series was the title scene at the beginning of every episode where a bomber in the upper right corner loses an outboard part of its left wing.
That part simply falls down like the plane is stationary, but wouldn't it really pitch upwards and start rotating backwards due to it being an airfoil?
Fascinating and detailed! Looking at things from a TV production standpoint, I'd put the inaccuracies in a different order, prioritizing the lack of a targeting reticle as the most important missing element.
The the missing wind shields and masks can be chalked up to the need to keep things visible to the camera (eg it's harder to see the actor without that space behind the gun being open and clear). The gunsights on the barrels were probably a miscommunication between the production team and the VFX subcontractor. It's silly but doesn't bother me much.
But that missing targeting reticle? It's such a cool element, very different than what I expected. That little addition would have added so much authenticity to the scenes! At the end of the day, every piece of historical fiction needs to navigate the tension between accuracy of detail and dramatic necessity - whether a turret is shielded properly or whether it's open enough so as to allow for the size and shape of cameras. Whether pullies connected to their proper bit of equipment would add just a little too much to an already bloated budget. If done properly, a piece of fiction can have a myriad of inaccuracies but still *feel* authentic, still get the big picture stuff correct. That little targeting reticle seems to me a perfect encapsulation of this, as an element that most people wouldn't be familiar with, that communicates a sense of time and place to the audience, while also telling all the subject matter experts that the producers did their homework.
I am currently watching this series and one thing that leaps out at me is the speed of the attacking German planes as they streak in front of the gunners. I've hunted birds in my youth so I know about leading the target but I cannot imagine an approaching enemy plane from the front because that makes the closing speed of over 600 mph. The gunner's time to aim and fire is only a few seconds. This is also the first Hollywood movie where the stars wear Oxygen masks the whole time. Usually, the stars have their masks off as in Top Gun. Speaking of the minus 50-degree air, I have read that because of the cold temperature it actually saved a few lives by stopping the loss of blood of wounded crewmen.
More great work. THANKS!! I soooo appreciate facts in these times full of half-truths and outright lies
Very much thanks to You for this explanation. The details You presented would not made the film worse but more real, especially when all these details could be presented in the discussions between crew members. Like: I could not hit a atttacking FW-190 due to misadjusting the polarized filter or vice verse I could due to filter. Etc.
Extrmely informative, thank you. Funny because there is a focus on the dangers of extreme low temperatures in the early episodes. Somehow the way fighter escorts fly through the B17s instead of providing top cover or scouting ahead to engage fighters before they can even get close to the bombers ( a la Zemke Wheel tactics ) doesnt seem right to me either.
I'm curious what the data is on friendly fire incidents between bombers when in their boxes.
Great video btw.
Edit: just discovered you have a video about ff incidents.
Would love to see a video about the effects of air battles to those on the ground. With millions of rounds being fired - are there any documented instances of injury or property damage from falling rounds? Do people today still find .50 cal projectiles digging in their gardens?
Very good
My dad was a radioman gunner in WWII for the 457th BG 750th Squadron out of Glotton England.
Did 35 missions, was shot down once.
I think the tracer inclusion is excusable since the visuals would have less dramatic effect without them. It is a show designed to entertain after all. Everything else you listed I could agree with and I really would have liked to see the bombers be upgraded with things like the chin turret as the show went on but they didn't do. That peed me off a bit.
Memphis belle had this thing beat by a mile
I suspect the lack of gun shutter was to give the camera more angles of the actor's face. This is why actors tend to not obstruct their faces in lots of shows and movies, even when it would make sense for them to do so. See Stalone removing his helmet in the judge dredd movie from forever ago.
On the tracer: I thought i saw diagrams of some cartridge types were the incendiary rounds were usually just extra big tracers. As in, they coated more of the bullet in the same phosphor material used to create tracer rounds. I could be wrong about this, especially in regards to modern incendiaries.
A cursory googling suggests early incendiary ammo was made as I described and purportedly the British figured out hollow rounds filled with nitrocellulose which started seeing service in 1940. So it really could depend i think.
I had no idea! I thought they just aimed visually, pulled the trigger and hoped for the best.
My Dad was a B17 pilot. His tech sgt Fred Yaggi had completed his missions and instead he requested to fly with my Dad, Martin Mayer, on a dangerous np mission over Munich ….his quick response and their communication over previous missions saved their lives. Marty and Fred and a reunion in our town, Annapolis, MD in 2001 and we had several more visits with Fred and his family ….. 7:49
Meant to mention Fred was his top turret gunner. He live to be 94 and stayed active until his death
As there is absolutely nothing meaningful for me to add to these masterpieces of historical research, I'll only contribute to the algorithm:
I like, therefore I engage.
just from how the shots were filmed, im assuming the shutters were removed so the gunner could be seen better in the outside shots....
I think then reason for no goggles, is the same as deciding to give certain characters moustaches for example Rosenthal). It’s so you can easier spot which character is which. Having their whole lower face cover makes it really hard to the the difference. Personally I could not spot the different characters before episode 4 or so. It would also be extremely hard for the viewers to see any emotion portrait on their faces, as it is hard enough as it is with only the masks. We gotta remember that this is a television show, not a highly accurate documentary. Some accuracies had to be lost for the sake of action and it looking cool.
The nitpickings are great. Compare what they did and miss
When people play that game, "if you could live at any time in history and do anything, what would you choose?" May answer, when I was young, was always "top-turret gunner in a WW II B-17." There were three men whom I admired that had been top-turret gunners in B-17's. All three had been shot down over Europe and held in German prison camps. All three were great gentlemen.
Best thing to come from Apple is the WWIIUSB critiques.
Thanks!
Thanks for the channel donation. It is very much appreciated.