39
40

Air History AMAWWII Aviation Author AMA (self.Warthunder)

plane_canadian が 投稿 - announcement

Hello, Reddit and r/WarThunder!

First off, I want to say that this is an odd sort of full circle to me. Flight simulation once upon a time got me back into aviation history as a teenager, and years later it’s one of the ways my publisher decided to make my book look fantastic. As a reminder of why, here’s the fantastic video what one of your members made for it. (So many thanks to him for this!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kyxjHo9oV8

I’m Charles Bain, and I’m the author of a book entitled “Rare Birds: Forgotten Aircraft of World War II”, available through Fonthill Media. It’s available on their website Monday, (http://fonthillmedia.com/Rare-Birds-Forgotten-Aircraft-of-the-Second-World-War) and on fine amazons everywhere in the near future. (Remember, if you pre-order on amazon, the price adjustments are repaid to you!) It’s my first book, and it has been a labour of love that I’m very proud of. I’m here to answer your questions.

A little bit of background before we get started. I’m a Canadian author, historian and educator. I received my Master’s degree in history on the subject of First Nations and the impact of their WWI service on their culture and Canadian history. I’d been interested in aviation since I was a little kid, but until my conversations with Fonthill the academic path had kept me away from it. Now, it’s become such a major part of my life again and I couldn’t be more pleased. The book was a labour of love, meant for beginners and the knowledgeable alike.

And I’m here to answer your questions.

This is my first AMA, and thank you to the mods for allowing this, and for all their help with the process. I’ll answer every legitimate question put to me, and don’t worry if I don’t get to it right away – if it takes me a few days, it’s likely because I hit the books to verify some of my answer. My biggest areas of knowledge are the 20th century and Canadian history, but if you’ve got curiosities and questions elsewhere, I’ll be more than happy to try to answer them, or at least point you in the direction of good books on the subject.

Thank you for your time, and I really look forward to speaking with you! And for those who want, you can find me on Facebook or at my history tumblr, historianatlarge.tumblr.com

全 44 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]HelvetiaCommander_Adama 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I guess I'll start with a somewhat obvious one: I've always found the technological progress exhibited by WWII-era aviation to be fascinating, so it would interesting to hear which plane you think incorporated some of the most groundbreaking design features for its time.

Thanks for doing this, I think it should be a nice opportunity to be able to ask an expert questions about a subject most of our subscribers are quite passionate about!

[–]plane_canadian[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't say obvious - fascinating, maybe, since even as I type this I keep wanting to change my answer. Which is the thing, really - the progress is utterly fascinating. Part of my introduction to the book is talking about how we go from the Wright Flyer in 1903 to jet aircraft within forty years. It's a staggering pace of change, accelerated to unbelievable speeds in both world wars.

I could go with many answers. I'll stick to warbirds for my answer, too, to fit your question. My first instinct is to say the Messerschmitt Me262 for regularizing jet technology. (And if you've ever seen the planned but never built version with swept wings and buried internal engines, it's worth a look - the drawing board Me262s were truly revolutionary.)

Another answer could be the Boeing B-29 Superfortress. Though it wasn't the first pressurized aircraft, it's the harbinger of what the future of aviation was going to look like.

Another instinct is, oddly, the PZL P-11, since Poland fielded the first all-metal fighter force in Europe, and it's strange to think that for a brief time Poland had the most advanced fighter force on Earth.

But I think my answer will actually be Sikorsky's Ilya Muromets bomber. Not only was it based on the first four engined aircraft in history, but it's the first strategic bomber in history, the first of a new way of waging war that nobody had anticipated or had much idea how to use - but they figured it out very quickly.

The Muromets was internally lit, heated, fairly comfortable (if you consider wicker chairs comfortable, at any rate), and it pioneered pretty much every field of strategic bombing. It was, for 1914, a technological marvel and a leviathan - but in a bigger sense, it sets the course for decades to come and innovates an entire realm of warfare.

[–]I (no longer) play America for the Brit L7friedhumanpie 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

How did the major powers of WW2 incorporate major innovations in aviation and aviation engineering - e.g. the introduction monoplanes, air-frame upgrades and variants, jet engines, radar - into their logistical and strategic planning? I mean was there specific leeway to possibly introduce a new technology into combat units, and, if so, how did they manage to do so on a logistical level - like swapping the planes combat units in North Africa were equipped with, moving the materiel far from the production center, or moving Luftwaffe flight units onto the Me-262?

Thank you for doing this. I'm trying to get a grasp of the logistical side of WW2 and haven't found anything aviation related besides "they received new planes", nothing on how the blooming heck they were delivered.

[–]plane_canadian[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for your question! It's one of those ones that doesn't get anywhere near enough coverage. I'll try to answer it as best I can.

The major powers generally tried to plan ahead. Germany, for instance, issued the specification for what would become the Heinkel 177 in 1936 - a plane that wouldn't fly for three years and wouldn't come into service until 1942. But German planners could have a rough timeline of what was coming. Though their plans never relied on it - probably a very good thing, with the He 177 - all the powers could set the future course and be prepared.

If you can plan ahead, you can roughly predict future needs, and adapt based on circumstances at the time. This is why you'll see initial orders for aircraft rise or fall, since from prototype to production model the need for an aircraft could very well disappear.

The French, for instance, could strategically plan for a lightweight fighter such as the Caudron C.714, but not be thrown off when it turned out to be inadequate to their needs (though not to the Poles - though that's a story for the book!).

So the implementation process was, in basic terms, a complicated interlocking process of planning, adaptation, testing, and evaluation - and it was being done for every model and technology coming into service. Sometimes, though, there's an element of chance - a plane you thought was obsolete suddenly finds new life, and your tactical plans reshape around that. (See the Henschel Hs123 for that one!)

In terms of actually introducing them, by and large the planes were simply flown out. This may seem like too simple an answer, but the major powers had ferrying commands whose exclusive job it was to start deploying aircraft to forward bases and training stations where crews and pilots would become familiar with them. This is an area of the war where many female pilots served, another story that's not talked about enough.

And some people might think that sounds dull, but it's anything but. Entire legends can arise around it, like seeing a type of plane overflying a country and that creates stories that said country equipped the plane in some role - with the destruction of so many records, it gets hard to track it down.

But what really stands out - and I hope you read the book just for this one - is the Vichy French regime deploying the Dewoitine D.520 from France to the Middle East. They needed to rush planes across the entire Mediterranean, and the D.520 had the legs for it - so the pilots put in an epic and grueling series of long-distance flights in what stands out as a staggering achievement - only to find that the planners had deployed the planes without the necessary logistics catching up to make them truly effective.

Hope this helps!

[–]lets_giorgio 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is more of a question about your line of work. I've always been fascinated by history and always wanted to be a historian. Unfortunately, my family always told me that there is no work for historians and I fell into computer science.

My question is, after you got your degree, did you find it difficult finding work as a historian or have you decided to write books as your profession?

Best of luck with the book and thanks for the AMA!

[–]plane_canadian[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'll say this for a start: being a historian is not a matter of degrees. Universities and professors may want you to think so, but being a historian is a frame of mind, and while the critical thinking and examination skills universities teach can be very useful here, someone dedicated to the craft and willing to hone their abilities can achieve a great amount.

One of the finest writers of American history, David McCullough, has a degree in English literature. His history books are staggering. Please bear that in mind - where you end up doesn't have to depend on where you start.

But to be more specific, I've never gotten a paying job as a historian. In part this has to do with a deteriorating situation for academics in Canada. Tenure-track positions are disappearing and being replaced by contracts so heinous that many university historians are desperately trying to make ends meet.

For me, there's a lot of personal experience wrapped up in this I won't get into - and ultimately, universities think PhDs look better on the letterhead and I can't think of a more horrible process of training than getting a PhD for a vast number of reasons.

So getting paid historical work is vastly difficult. This book - and others Fonthill has contracted me to write - are the first paid historical work I've done. But I got here without necessarily needing my university experience. I believe it makes me a better person, and a better writer - but it's never necessary.

My profession now is teaching. We'll see how well the book(s) do to maybe change that, but it turns out that a university environment wasn't for me anyways. I love interacting with students, imparting knowledge. It's part challenge, part science, and part performance - and it's wonderful.

So in the end, after all this, my advice to you is this: you don't need to have degrees up the wazoo to be a historian. In Canada, history is currently being sustained in my experience by passionate volunteers, rather than academic historians who essentially write for other academic historians.

You can contribute, and you can be a historian regardless of circumstances - it's a matter of will, of having that spark. Work at it, love it - you'll find that the end result, where you end up, surprises you.

Thank you very much, and I'm loving the AMA.

[–]verethra ahmi verethravastemôVerethra 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

2 questions:

  • Do you know a bit of helicopter. If yes. Can you share some general information about heli in WWII and post-war?

  • More personal: what's your favourite(s) plane(s).

[–]plane_canadian[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I know a bit about them, yes. Hellicopters of WWII were still in their infancy, and much like airplanes themselves in 1914, there was little idea how to use them strategically or tactically.

By 1950, the US had a very good idea about some of their uses, which shows up in the Korean War and in a much larger sense by the Vietnam war - within thirty years their helicopters go from newfangled to the decisive weapon of waging conflicts.

But the most extensive use of WWII helicopters was by the Germans. Focke-Achgelis company turned out some interesting ones, especially the Fa223 Drache, which I think was the first helicopter to actually enter production. But far more interesting is the use the German navy put them to, including designs to be deployed on U-boats and most especially the Flettner FI 282.

The Kolibri was designed for ship-to-ship use, but ends up as the first helicopter with a planned combat role. Again, as with so much else in German aviation history, it was "too little too late", but if you want a good starting point to WWII helicopters, those are the ones to start with.

Though, because I can, the Allies also worked on the Hafner Rotabuggy - if you haven't discovered that already, I'll leave it a delightful surprise.

As for my favourites, gosh. I've always had a soft spot for flying boats (take a guess what my next book, currently being written, is on), but the 'first love' will always be the Hawker Hurricane. There's a beautiful replica of one in my home town, canvas and all. Such a wonderful and stable gun platform. Never glamorous, but always very effective and, when you get down to it, the saviour of Great Britain.

The other one I think I have to mention is the PZL P.11c. I've always loved it, obsolete and woefully outmatched though it was. There's something endlessly fascinating about the boundless courage -and unexpected success - of its use.

No, I tell a lie - I have to mention a third. The Martin Mars. I absolutely love that flying boat, with its staggering numbers and the fact that it's still at work decades later. I jokingly tell my students that it's the plane you call when a fire insults your mother - it's one of those big and enormously capable flying boats and you can't help but love it.

[–]verethra ahmi verethravastemôVerethra 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wow thanks mate for this answer! I'll dig about heli then. It's something I barely know about WWII. Well the litle use may be the causes. Based German, inventing stuff in an avant-garde way.

Hafner Rotabuggy

haha damned! That's really crazy.

As for my favourites, gosh

I always like asking this question, because I know it's very difficult! :)

Flying boats are love. I'll be very interested in your future book!

The Martin Mars

Ah well, I quite like this one. But it's the same for all flying boats. I recall it's used as water bomber, that's quite nice when you think that some were made into scrap.

Thanks for your answers! I forgot to tell it in my previous post, but your book sure looks interesting! Rare planes is always nice to learn about, and I quite like the avant-garde or crazy stuff people did!

[–]plane_canadian[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for the question! And I hope you purchase it, it'd be nice to have one guaranteed sale. I tried to balance rarity versus an introduction to newcomers. So while the Westland Lysander is in there, a plane that an old hand will know all about - so's the Westland Welkin, which they might not know much about.

And yes, flying boats are love. They are absolutely love. And you're right, the last Mars is still a water bomber - her sister is being converted back into US navy colours for a museum - and turns out to be so useful that she's stayed in service right up until the present day.

[–]M8A1 Big Cat KillerClockworkRaider 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I know a large number of pilots flying for the United Kingdom in World War II were trained in Canada. What affect did that have on general aviation in Canada after the war, due to the infrastructure, aircraft and airports all being there?

Also, with pilots being trained 2000 miles from the bases they would soon be operating out of, what was the primary mode of transport to get the pilots to the UK? Boat? Flying on board bombers operated by WASP pilots? If they used boats, how did they space them out to prevent the loss of say 300 fresh pilots who go down with a ship if it gets attacked by a U-Boat?

[–]plane_canadian[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I particularly love this question - my hometown has a small aviation museum in a hangar that was built for the Commonwealth Air Training Plan. The memorabilia portion of the museum is in the old hall where they used to pack the parachutes. (Worth a visit if you ever find yourself in Windsor, Ontario - they're working on a replica Mosquito)

As for the effect on Canada, it's difficult to quantify. We were as air-mad as any other nation, but in a military sense Canada seems to rise and fall based on the needs of the time. The airports were mostly already built, after all (ours opened in the 1920s), but it did result in a permanent expansion of many of them. The aircraft were, sadly, mostly used up or scrapped after the war.

But it did start the dream that would eventually result in the Avro Arrow, one of those rare things that is both history and powerful memory for all Canadians. By and large I'd say the pride and confidence is the largest effect on our aviation - we knew what we were capable of, and we knew we could do what we put our minds too.

And for the bombers, the transport route could be fairly simple, from Newfoundland to Greenland/Iceland, then on to Europe. The fighters were transported by boat, and the pilots parceled out as far as I know with departing troop transports.

The vulnerability was real, but the sheer number of ships made a loss of pilots less likely overall. There are incidents of this failing, of course, but the mathematical odds against it happening seems to be the main defense against it.

But things could go very wrong very fast - my first thought there is to HMS Glorious returning to Britain with experienced (if temporarily defeated) Gloster Gladiator pilots, then being mauled out of the fog by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.

You had to rely on the defenses and the odds - for most pilots that would prove enough. But certainly not for all.

[–]-FOO- LeaderKefeng 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hi Charles, many see the FW190 as superior to the Bf109, and many features (canopy design, electrics etc) support that. But why is it that most German aces mostly flew the 109 and had more success with it?

[–]plane_canadian[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is a bit of a complicated answer, but I love those, so here we go.

First off, remember that the Bf109 is deployed far more than the Fw190, regardless of any technical circumstances. Remember they built something over 33,000 109s as compared to - I think - 20,000-odd 190s. More Luftwaffe aces will be in 109s simply because there's more 109s deployed at any period in the war.

Secondly, the Fw190 was initially designed for a lower altitude, and as Germany's strategic situation deteriorated the air war (at least in the West) was at high altitude. That high up, the Fw 190 was - at least in earlier versions - not working at peak efficiency, but the 109G was coming into its element.

Thirdly, a lot of pilots had spent years in their 109s and had grown accustomed to the type. They had honed themselves in it, knew every quirk, and the gradual improvements to the type were easily and quickly mastered. Someone who survived until 1942 with the 109 was very, very good at fighting in it.

Fourthly, the 109 properly employed was still a very deadly and capable fighter until the end of the war. Though it was reaching its maximum potential by 1944, some of the greatest pilots in history were still deploying it, which kept its effectiveness fairly high until very late in the war.

In the end, it was a tough fighter with a good punch - and the Luftwaffe's Experten might fly it exclusively as it essentially molded around them. An experienced pilot who knew his plane intimately could do truly staggering things with it. I've read stories about the old hands of the Luftwaffe using 109s head-on against B-17s, waiting until the last second before using the 20mm weapons to fire essentially straight through the cockpit and down the fuselage, diving out through the bomber box.

That takes iron nerve and skill - and they had a mount they could trust to do it. So the Fw190 might evolve into a technically superior fighter by the Fw190D series at least - but by that point, the 109 was still the staple fighter of the Luftwaffe and the chosen loyal mount of its best.

[–]-FOO- LeaderKefeng 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

So would you consider the Fw190 to be a waste of recources then? Or phrased differently: What could the FW do, what the 109 couldn't? Was it the multirole capabilities, or the easier handling that allow novices to be more effective, that made the FW viable?

[–]plane_canadian[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was absolutely not a waste of resources. It did its job very well, and as you've pointed out, it's multi-role capability and seemingly endless adaptation made it a potent fighter.

It was always a very potent design, but the ultimate failure was that the Germans kept updating existing fighters and did not field entirely new designs - but in that regard, the Fw 190 does score highly because by war's end you've got the Dora series and the Ta-152, proving that in the end it was the more adaptable concept.

The 109, for all its pros, could only be adapted so far, and you couldn't change the production lines to something entirely new since Germany was, by then, fighting for its life.

So it's a balanced question, really. The 109 did wonders for the Germans and remained potent until the end - but as pilot quality declined, performance dropped off steeply. And no amount of Experten could reverse that slide.

[–]-FOO- LeaderKefeng 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Another question: Major nations of WW2 followed a pattern of how they designed their fighters. Japanese went mostly for lightweight, maneuverable planes, USA for heavy but fast ones and Germany for fast lightweight fighters.

How did these "doctrines" affect the outcome of the war, and what dotrcine was the most influencial for the post war aviation?

[–]plane_canadian[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'll start with Japan here. It wasn't so much the doctrine that doomed Japanese fighter efforts, but the inability to quickly shift from it when it was no longer effective. In 1941 and 1942, those lightweight fighters were devastating - their long range gave them an enormous strategic advantage and they could fly rings around the planes they encountered. But the US simply learned, essentially, to not get into a turning fight with them.

But it takes Japan far too long to start deploying counter-fighters such as the Ki-84 or others that adapt to changing circumstances. The failure of Japan's doctrine was not preparing follow-on designs, a failing that the Germans faced as well, with similar results. The Germans had not prepared new basic fighters to replace either the Bf109 or the Fw190, so they were stuck improving what they had as best they could, where the Americans and British fielded entirely new designs.

The lesson there, really, is about adaptability - these nations had doctrines, but it was their ability to abandon them or shift them quickly that made them successful or not. It's also worth noting that the countries that shifted the best, such as the US or USSR, had vast industrial bases to do so with, a not inconsiderable factor.

But the thing is, all of these doctrines really don't survive the war, because the Germans brought the Me262 into the fray. The arrival of that fighter, and the sudden need for jets, means that all the old ideas have to be thrown out the window and an entirely new tactical and strategic rule book has to get written.

Piston fighters linger on until Korea, true, but their days are numbered. So again, adaptability becomes key - but so does technological prowess, and here a big part of things becomes "who gets the best German equipment and technicians?"

Because while the Germans were stuck with their fighter doctrine, they were the ones who had developed jet technology and theory the furthest by the end of the war - so whoever could seize the lion's share of that would have the biggest post-war advantage coming out of the war.

So the American seizure of so much advanced German materiel, combined with an early lead in long-range pressurized aircraft, gave the US a serious post-war advantage that they could shape doctrine around - but it also means that they were best placed to take advantage in the commercial boom in air travel, post-war.

[–]-FOO- LeaderKefeng 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

But the thing is, all of these doctrines really don't survive the war, because the Germans brought the Me262 into the fray. The arrival of that fighter, and the sudden need for jets, means that all the old ideas have to be thrown out the window and an entirely new tactical and strategic rule book has to get written.

Wasn't the early (and modern?) jet combat idea the same as the "boom and zoom" approach the Luftwaffe did with it's 109's? I know that not every 109 pilot stayed out of turnfights, but especially mid war (1941-43) these tactics proved to be devastating to it's victims, especially Soviets.

AFAIK (novice, that just plays video games) that kind of energy fight is still being used today.

EDIT: Thanks for answering though!

[–]plane_canadian[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's similar, but recall that it had to evolve essentially twice. Moreover, post-war weaponry means that combat became radically different for jets. By the Korean War, the effectiveness of gunnery combat was slipping away as speeds increased, so missile technology begins to rise - and this means that the strategy has to change again.

We learn from the past, and the Luftwaffe's successes definitely influenced that, but new sets of circumstances moved tactics and doctrine back and forth.

We may come back to "Boom and Zoom", but it was not a single, continuous evolutionary process, but was rather shaped by experience with new capabilities and weapons.

And no worries about being a novice - I like to have what I'm saying discussed and debated. I might learn something, or realize something I'd forgotten.

It'd be a terrible world if I was all-knowing, really!

EDIT: One of the things I love about history is that we do come back to tried-and-true in strange ways, even in radically changing circumstances. It's an odd and fascinating phenomenon.

[–]162 WILL RISE AGAINdu44 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You talk a lot about German jets as being the best in the world, and that their jets would give whoever got them a big advantage. From what I've read German jet engines were subpar to the engines the British were building, especially Rolls Royce. And that's why the Soviets ended up putting the VK-1 in their MiG-15, 17, and La-15. Care to explain?

[–]FamousAverage 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I have kind of a wierd question. Last semester I had an English professor who wrote poetry and fiction and he always talked about his published works never being done or he was never happy with the end product. He always felt he could say something better.

So my question is do you feel that way about your book, do you feel it's not yet done and it can be revised more or is it different because it's more factual?

[–]plane_canadian[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I doubt I'll ever feel like it's done. The harshest critic of your work will always be yourself.

I'm certain of my facts. I reviewed a lot of sources and tried my utmost to ensure that, and of course I'd revise if new information proved my sources wrong. But the thing is, you pour yourself into the writing and you always want it to be better.

If you're like me - or like your professor - there have been books you've read that have left trails across your soul. Things that have fired you up or tilted your whole world on its side. Changed everything.

Believe me, you never feel like you've managed that - but you always want to. I hope that what I write might change someone's life in even a small way, because I'm contributing to the knowledge of humanity in some small way. But I am never quite satisfied with the prose, never quite feel it's as good as it ought to be, or could be.

This wasn't a weird question, it's the very core of what I think writing is. I know authors of fiction who feel the same way - you never quite feel done. Just that you've done the best you can...for now.

[–]American Planes, Canadian at heart - Do it again bomber harrisDressedw1ngs 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

What's your thoughts on the growing belief that the Germans had a huge technological superiority over the allies in the air?

[–]plane_canadian[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

In the most basic terms, Germany was ahead overall by war's end, if only in terms of how far their vision could go. They had invested early and heavily in developing jet and rocket technology, and had the scientific knowledge to make what hadn't even been imagined in other countries a reality.

But none of that really mattered since the Nazi state was run by incompetents who relied on vision and instinct and had the organizational instincts of your average snail. The German state was a mess under the Nazis. Ministries overlapped and competed, they fielded a vast family of designs rather than concentrating their production, and corruptive competition between Nazi potentates could be as decisive as actual technical merits.

So, really, technological superiority meant nothing for the Germans - they never implemented it properly, nor do I think they could have.

We're the beneficiaries of a culture that has produced seventy years of popular "what ifs", so we're conditioned to think about monumental German science - but the practical reality was it could create marvels, but never properly use them. Or, at absolute best, use them too late and improperly.

Also, we tend to forget that whatever their technological vision, they had to ram their heads into the ceiling of progress. The Germans could design a fighter jet (the Heinkel He 280 - featured in the book!) by 1940-41, but then they ran into a seemingly endless series of trying to make the engines work reliably.

It wasn't enough just to build the Me262 - the trick was making it work reliably, which meant getting the engines to be durable and functional enough. And that's a problem they never truly solved.

Lastly, I should mention that even when they did solve all the vast technical problems, they were using slave labour since we're dealing with a vicious tyrant-state. And while you can build vast numbers of, say, Heinkel 162s in mountains or with slaves, the product quality leaves a lot to be desired.

[–]American Planes, Canadian at heart - Do it again bomber harrisDressedw1ngs 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I personally use this question to gauge where someone stands in the "what if" realms of history and if it matters I mostly agree with what you say :p

I think there's a limit to how advanced the Germans were when it came to jet technology, for example the Brits had their E.28/39 flying in 1941. Allied engines were much more reliable as well.

The Germans never truly invested in a strategic bombing force, which also helped bring about their demise.

[–]plane_canadian[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

"What If" history questions are very fun to consider, though we have to be careful not to fall too far into historical mythology. And as it stands, I like being agreed with as much as the next person, so thank you.

There was always going to be a limit - designers in every nation had no idea what jets could do, nor what their limits would be, and that plays out in numerous ways.

Lastly, since I have to be a salesman here in some regard - I go into some detail about the failure of the Germans to invest in strategic bombing, covering an interesting might-have-been.

[–]American Planes, Canadian at heart - Do it again bomber harrisDressedw1ngs 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I usually don't like any sort of what ifs, because it gives too much "ground" to say to those who think paper planes would have saved the Reich.

I'm interested in this book, and its nice to support Canadian authors.

[–]plane_canadian[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you, and goodness knows we need the help!

[–]Saltzier 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

What plane would be the "most unusual" visually and/or technologically to you?

[–]plane_canadian[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's a hard one, because there's been a lot of odd-looking ducks over the decades. If I stick to the period, one that springs to mind is the Fokker D.XXIII, which looks like someone took a Morane-Saulnier 406, Dornier Do335 and a P-38 Lightning, and put them all in a sack and gave it a good shake, then built what fell out.

Technologically, though, I'm going with the Fisher P-75 Eagle, featured in the book - not because it was particularly advanced or on a strange track, but because it was an actual Frankenstein's Monster of a plane, bolted together from various parts. The fact that it worked out only slightly better than Victor Frankenstein's attempt is neither here nor there.

[–]godzilla5549 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

A bit of a simple question.

I'm now beginning my college career as a History major and I would like to try and specialize in World War II history, specifically from either an aviation perspective or something from the Pacific Islands. I'd like to know what you think could be good choices as to what I could do after schooling. I have considered going into a teaching position, and I would specialize myself to be able to teach advanced high school courses and eventually being a college professor. But I would also just like to learn and research, and I don't know if a sort of a museum position like an archivist would be better.

Thanks for for doing this AMA.

[–]plane_canadian[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, I wouldn't call this one simple at all - and it's about the future you want, so a rather important one at that!

All that you've suggested are good potential paths, but a lot depends on where you are and what circumstances happen around it. I always say that no plan survives first contact with reality, so don't be too worried about planning everything out now - you'll take advantage of chances as they come.

I got lucky with this book, and now I've got a chance at solid authorship, and we'll see whether the sales help shape a new path for me - but I will say this: I have never felt more rewarded, personally, then when I am teaching.

When you get through to students, when you can see what you're talking about having an impact? There's a joy and pride to that which has nothing to do with paychecks (though those never hurt, do they?) and everything to do with knowing you've improved someone's life in a tiny way.

If you're up for it, teach. It's not for everyone, of course - and I'd never knock a good museum position. Another consideration for a lot of history students is library science, as well.

But I suppose the most important point to make here is that the learning and research will almost undoubtedly come separately from where you go. Here in Canada, history professors are expected to make the majority of their income from their published works, so the most important factor in being a professor is having a safe venue to publish from. (that this makes teaching a secondary task, or even a necessary annoyance, is a problem in our university system that rankles me deeply) The trick is, in almost any other area, you'll be doing that on your own time rather than working time.

My best advice to a person that I recognize very well (strangely asked the same questions myself, once or twice) is to be prepared to shift as you need. Expect defeats. Being in history, loving history, is not about the best path to achieve success, but the path that will end up working for you.

[–]RadMarxDe_Facto 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

If you had to choose your favorite fighter/interceptor for each of the major powers of WW2, which would you choose?

I.e. Germany, Japan, UK, US, USSR

Thanks for doing his AMA!

[–]plane_canadian[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I knew I'd get this question and I've been looking forward to it. So thank you for asking it!

Britain - Hawker Hurricane, hands down. It's always been a sentimental favourite since I first saw "Battle of Britain" when I was a kid. This was further driven on my years playing Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator -was even in a Hurricane-based squadron, once. I just love it, and it never gets the glory but it sure did the job.

Germany - Focke-Wulf Fw 187. It's in the book, and I go into extensive reasons there why I find it fascinating, but I think it would've been a far better heavy fighter than the Bf 110 proved to be. Imagine if Germany had its own version of the P-38, is really what I'm getting at.

Italy - Macchi M.C. 205. Again, one that's in the book. I love the look of it, and it was such a huge leap from Italy's pre and early-war fighters.

Japan - The Nakajima Ki-84. You may see a pattern here - I included a lot of planes in the book I myself found fascinating. So much potential here that just never reached the numbers to be decisive.

US - While I love the Thunderbolt, and the Lightning - the answer here has to be the Cadillac of the Skies, the P-51 Mustang. It's a fantastic story, first of all, and it's just a gorgeous bird and to be paired to such historic achievement? Definitely the winner.

USSR - Yakovlev Yak 3. Though I've got some Polikarpovs in the book, the Yak 3 is the fighter that made Luftwaffe aces nervous in the East. Superb, durable, and one of many nasty surprises the Soviets had in store for the Germans.

[–]RadMarxDe_Facto 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Amazing list and I agree 100% the whole way through.

I'll have to check out your book, thanks again!

[–]plane_canadian[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for asking it - and I'll add another sentimental favourite: Poland's PZL P.11c. The day I forget my love for that little fighter will be a dark one indeed.

And I hope you do - there's even a Czech and Yugoslavian fighter in there, for your perusal!

[–]Jack the sound barrier. Bring the noise.SkullLeader[🍰] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

How much further do you think prop fighters might have advanced if a) the jet engine had not come on to the scene and diverted development resources away from props and b) if the allies had not had victory in sight a while before the war actually ended which seemed to prevent them from fully pursuing advanced designs like XP-72, MB5, XF8B, etc. as there was no (or less) perceived need for them. Was prop fighter design nearing the limits of what was possible using props as it was, or was there more room to develop them further?

Also, one other question. It seems that there was far less cooperation between the Axis powers in general than one might have expected, especially between Japan and the other Axis countries. Certainly there are examples where there was cooperation - Japan fielding the German Mg151 20mm cannon, the Ki-61's engine being a copy of the DB601, Japan being provided with the design of the Me163 and its engine, etc. but overall it seems like there was a lot less cooperation than there could have been. Do you think this was due to the geographical distance and the difficulties it imposed, each country being too consumed by its own difficulties, perhaps the benefits for Germany that might be realized if Japan had more success (and vice-versa) being too far in the future, or some other reason?

[–]plane_canadian[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'll start this by adding the XP-40Q to the list just because I've always loved it and wish we could've seen what it could have done. And what if questions are always interesting, aren't they?

But in a larger answer, I feel that piston-engine fighters were arriving at their maximum potential in terms of power and capability. There would've been an improvement in performance that was impressive at the time, but minimal in a larger sense. Air combat might have gotten a little faster, or a little higher, but ultimately I think the propeller fighter was reaching its apex.

But you've listed some stellar examples of what might have been, but the potential of jets was, in reality, just so much greater.

[–]plane_canadian[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ah, saw the extra bit after I wrote my first answer.

It was mainly due to geographical distance. After invading the Soviet Union, the Germans had to ship anything to Japan via sea, which was a dangerous route indeed and very little got through.

Moreover, there was very little coordination at all - each had their own war aims and the Nazis weren't exactly thrilled about cooperating with an Asian empire that, if successful, would ultimately become a competitor. In the main though, the entire Axis was an alliance of convenience for Germany and Japan.

To all practical purposes, it became essentially in-name-only alliance when Hitler invaded the USSR and never bothered to formally tell the Japanese beforehand, who then felt no obligation to help. Which allowed Stalin to shift divisions to the front and may well have been the move that saved Moscow.

There's some fascinating stories, though, about technology transfers - possibly the single most dangerous job Axis submarines were called upon to perform, with the least reward.

[–]Jack the sound barrier. Bring the noise.SkullLeader[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Thank you for both answers!

[–]Wrx09 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

In your research, were there any aircraft produced late in WWII that could of changed the tide of war if it was introduced a few years earlier?

[–]wackyvorlon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What do you consider the worst plane design of the war?

[–]IAmTryingToOffendYou [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What are your thoughts on the Spitfire and the impact they had on the war?