The problem with the Boomerang was lack of a 2 stage supercharger. They used the Pratt and Whitney twin row Wasp, which was the most powerful engine we were making at the time, for locally made Beaufort bombers. It lacked a 2 stage supercharger, but was in reality pushing out the same horsepower as the engine fitted to the Grumman F4F. Eventually 2 experimental Boomerangs were built, designated CA 14 and CA 14A. These aircraft had a GE turbocharger fitted (on loan from the US). The result was a top speed in excess of 345mph, as opposed to the 305mph top speed of the production models. The CA 14A differed from the 14 in as much as it had a "square" empanage (tail). The increase in speed with its already renowned maneuverability gave it a performance considered close to that of a Mk V Spitfire. A request by the Australian govt to license build these turbochargers was refused and the return of the turbocharger on loan was demanded by the US govt. Another "what if" moment To get a proper view of how maneuverable they were, get a copy of Nannette by Edwards Park. It recounts his experience flying P-39s in New Guinea, they frequently flew escort to CA12, 13 and 19 on ground attack missions. On the return journey there was usually a mock dogfight between the P 39 and the Boomerangs, Park recounts that the Boomerangs could "turn on a dime and were impossible to out maneuver down low". What was not mentioned in the video was that Fred David (the Boomerangs designer) was a German Jew who fled Germany and went to Japan, when he realised that Japan was going to side with Germany he then went to Australia. During his service with Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation he was regarded by the Govt as an enemy alien and had to report weekly to police. Design of the Boomerang commenced on the very morning that the news came through of the sinking of HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales off the coast of Malaya, which makes the design commencement date just after 10 December 1941.
I agree that if the Boomerang had a 2 stage supercharger the performance, in my Estimation , could have increased the speed to at least 340mph. What do you think?
I wonder why the USA would deny the Aussies a licence to manufacture the GE turbocharger. After all, they did get a lot of technologies from the Commonwealth, especially the Brits.
@@RUHappyATMmight not have been covered under Lend Lease? I know we broke into the DuPont offices to take licensed from Germany plastics formulas, no record as to if they really did break in or someone just held the door open. My favorite WW1 trivia was the Germans used British artillery shell fuses without license from Armstrong Sidley but after the war paid a royalty to them based on BRITISH CASUALTIES
Anything that could fly, shoot, and drop bombs was still something, and way better than not having any air support at all. Kudos to the pilots who flew them.
The only engine available was a bomber radial engine, no fighter engines available, did the best with what they had, impressive, thanks for your service.
What we wanted and desperately needed, was Spitfires. We did eventually get a small shipment of those, but in the meantime, it was a case of 'Do what you can with what you have.' We had Wirraway trainers, which were chronically slow, and un-armed. We took the technology of the Wirraway, and made a smaller faster version, but it still had the thick low-speed wings, not laminar flow. It was cobbled together in a hurry with the parts we could get. It was 1936 technology, in 1942. A year later, we started making P-51s under license, and less than a year after that, we made a newer better Australian version of the P-51, called the Dingo. That was quite a good aircraft, and earned a place with the other 'Super-Props' that were being developed at the end of the war. They were all made obsolete by jets. The Boomerang was not a world beating aircraft, it was a cobbled together effort because it was that or throw rocks at them from the ground. We did the best we could with what we had and what we knew at the time. It was cobbled together from the parts of the WIrraway and the guns we could get. It didn't have the best engine, it didn't have the best guns, it didn't have the best airfoil section, and it sure didn't have the best speed. It was what we could cobble together at the time, with what we had.
One thing I find interesting- both the Wirraway and the US P-64 ( a little known North American fighter) share a surprising resemblance. However, when you consider both were designed off the same basis - it makes sense
As you mention it was do what you can with available gear. As for the Spitfires operating out of the Darwin area, they had one giant curse on them, the propeller governors. They failed time after time after time leading to the engines overspeeding and if not brought under control swiftly it turned the Merlin engines into scrap iron. The book Darwin Spitfires by Anthony Cooper describes this in detail. It happened so often that it was a miracle they ever got to shoot down any enemy.
This channel always gets it wrong. I'm pretty sure it's AI bullcrap. 1. The Betty was easy to shoot down, the Japanese sacrificed armour and self sealing tanks for range. 2. and most egregiously, it was the Australians, not the Americans, that cleared Papua New Guinea, with some assistance from generally American engineers. The Australians literally taught the American Army (notably not the Marines) how to fight in the Jungle (look up the fights for Buna, Sanananda and Gona and how pissed the American General MacArthur was with Major General Forrest Harding). It was the Australians, not the Americans, that had the first victory on land against the Japanese (Milne Bay). 3. You also missed that the fighter was put together in 6 weeks or so, the fastest ever development of a fighter. I couldn't watch to the end because of the terrible errors but I suspect you missed it's best role which was ground targeting for our Kiwi brethren in the F4U's. This stuff is easily checked. I'll never watch another Dark Skies Video.
Bloody good heavens sir , I must say , boulder- dash . You limeys are always correct ! How do you do it all alone , constantly ? My God man , simply incredible …😮
@@johnmcpherson1713 This movie was already made - Kokoda (2006). Of course is not the usual Hollywood bullshit, but a low budged Australian production. Good movie - based on true history. In a way is similar to The Thin Red Line.
You have to remember America won everything, it won the Battle of Britain, it sunk the Bismarck, it won the Battle of Leningrad, it won at El Alamein oh and they won the First World War too.
A wonderful workhorse plane which found its role destroying ground assets with deadly accuracy. If Boomerangs had been in sea context they could probably have been torpedo aircraft carrying 2 each and flying in pairs. The lighter type torpedoes would have suited given the plane's very strong climbing rate after release. The 'Betty' was noted for going up like a torch if hit in the wings because they were full of aviation fuel. This is what gave them long range. If the Boomerangs had been fitted with small rocket mounts such as were used in the Mosquito they could have caused mayhem by getting inside clumps of 'Betty' bombers and launching in 2 directions per Boomerang pair then lifted or dropped away. Exploding 'Bettys' could possibly have downed some companions.
I was wondering about that. The USAAF, USMC, and USN fighter jocks called them *one shot lighters* . That giant 80' + wing has hundreds of gallons of aviation gasoline in non self sealing fuel tanks. A few .50 API hits and you have a giant falling flare.
The Boomerang was to leave its mark in latter times in the Pacific war as a ground attack aircraft. Like most heavy and stubby aircraft it carried bombs and rockets well. My dad who was in the Australian Army on Bouganville, helped to guard the airbase at Torakima, and a flight of 'em along with US Marine Corsair's and the short, heavy Aussie planes were thought of very highly for the support they gave the troops.
I noted that they opened fire at 250 yards. Too far away for maximum impact. I think the RAF used the same range during the Battle of Britain, but changed the tactic when it was found that those who got in close had more success.
@@pe.bo.5038 Tell that to the pilots who found that closing the range did increase the accuracy and destructive power of their burst. Scientifically, the measurement of Impact is mass times volicity, so with any projectile there is going to be some slowing of volicity due to air resistance etc.
@@markbowman2890👎🤢🤮 Don't lecture me on physics,when you actually have no idea,that a cannon shell has explosive filler,who's fuse explodes on contact-regardless of speed!These same cannons worked pretty well on more stout German planes,and for a reason,Bettys had the nickname "flying zippo"!🤢🤮
@@pe.bo.5038 I don't disregard the explosive element of a canon shell. Damage sustained is the sum total of all the elements combined. What you are implying is that a hunk of metal traveling at great velocity has no bearing on the damage sustained. The thing I probably left out was the number of shells that hit the target at closer range. But that was my point, getting closer than 200 yards will bring about more kills. That is why some pilots aligned their guns for convergence at 100 yards. 303 or 20mm, it is going to make a difference. Therefore, had the Boomerangs held off firing until they were closer, the results may have been better.
Not that it could not, it did not. Even our Wirraways shot down Val's, Kate's and a Zero. It was just that better air-to-air fighters became available. A lot of Kiwi Corsairs and RAAF Vengeance aircraft hit important targets marked by Boomerangs! Our top-cover were bloody good too!
@@MangoTroubles-007 P.O John Archer shot down a Ki-43 so it COULD shoot down Jap planes. It allowed several Hudsons to get away from the 11th Sentai - a worthwhile effort! 100% false !? - you check yourself, troll!
@@MangoTroubles-007 So is yours. Post war records showed it was a Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa which was nicknamed the "Army Zero" due to it's similarities to the IJN Mitsubishi Zeros'.
The first Australian produced aircraft used in combat would be the earlier CAC Wirraway. Used as a general purpose aircraft, they were pressed into service as attack aircraft in Singapore. 21 Squadron, squadron letter GA were flown in Singapore. A Japanese aviation magazine showed one with a pie plate generator or siren on a pylon from the left fuselage side. Others were used in the failed defense of Rabaul at the same time. One is credited with shooting down a Japanese fighter.
I have not heard much about the Boomerang attack plane, but Australia built its own fighter. Is there any pilot who wouldn't enjoy an upgrade from the Bruster Buffalow?
@stephensowell: You never heard much about them because they never achieved anything noteworthy. P-40s, on the other hand, did remarkably well as long as they didn't engage A6Ms Zekes in dogfights. I noticed how the video skipped over their contributions to the airwar. As long as they were used properly, they worked quite well, especially in China at the hands of the AVG.
Not the Finns! Too late the Aussies (after Singapore and Tjiliatjap) found out that the Hurricane with half fuel and half ammo and an F2A-3 lightened to F2A-1 specs could match and beat a Ki-43 and the Zero..... down low, the Boomerang would have also!
Darwin was bombed by the same fleet that bombed Pearl Harbour . The 7th and 9Th Divisions had just left TOBRUK after beating the Germans and Allies to leave Africa and go on and wreck havoc with the Japanese Army.
Who wrote the script . WTF Sturdy Construction of Betty Bombers . I just lost all respect for anything this channel ever puts out again . If you think I'm over reacting look up the Betty and it's construction . Oh the Boomerang was license built it's bigger brother is much better known
I like to watch the WWII channels, but I sure am getting tired of seeing that every plane, tank, support vehicle, ship, boat, submarine or weapon type won the war. Yes they all won the war, but you really don't need to make it seem that each one did it alone.☹
That's the first and only time I've heard of Betty bombers being robust and shrugging off cannon fire. Just a tip for future RAAF documentaries: it's pronounced R-double-A-F, not R A A F 👍
Yes, the Boomerang was slow (just over 300 mph), but surely the G4M Betty was not a sturdy aircraft. Its nickname was "one-shot-lighter" because of unprotected fuel tanks.
@@lancerevell5979 Nope. Neither historically nor practically. They never called them that. And there is a difference between .303 caliber and 7.7 mm practically. It has to do with headspacing and a lot of other issues, but the things are not the same.
and there were 4 of them, something not mentioned. One strange fact, the 20mm canon was reverse engineered from a 20mm canon which had been "souvenired" by an Australian soldier returning from North Africa
The CAC kangaroo had 4 50s and 2 20mm faster then the Mustangs turned tighter then Spitfires but by the time it got accepted it got cancelled because Jets came
3:43 "7.7mm."? The Japanese & Italians had rifle/machinegun cartridges with that designation, but no Allied Power had any. They would have been either .303 British or .30-06, usually called, simply, ".303" or ".30" caliber. Incidentally, to makes things confusing, the ".303" bullet is .311 in. in diameter, the ".30" bullet is .308 in. The difference is due to the British custom of specifying bore diameter from land-to-land, the U.S. practice being groove-to-groove.
@@minot.8931 No, there are two methods of measuring bore diameter. Both are correct. The U.S. method. which is employed by most countries, measures bore diameter from groove to groove, the British, from land to land. The U.S. value is also the nominal bullet diameter, since the bullet fills the bore, and the lands cut into it, to grip it & impart its spin. Incidentally, the Russians use the British method. Thus, the 7.62mm X 39mm & 7.62mm X 54Rmm fire slightly larger diameter bullets than the 7.62mm NATO & .30-06.
I recommended this video only a week or two ago. Did you really get it done so quickly? Or was it already on the drawing board. In either case, well done!
The Boomerang's biggest problem was its power plant, which was actually meant for bombers. An upgraded Boomerang with a much better engine was developed but, by the time it was ready for production, Australia was already getting Spitfires and P51 Mustangs in abundance. The logical decision was made to concentrate production on supporting those aircraft, leaving the Boomerang to carry on as a ground attack aircraft, a role at which it excelled. In all other respects, it was a great little warplane, being agile, well-armed and tough.
I quote Bill Gunston, who was in WW2, and who, when he wrote about aircraft was usually writing from experience of actually flying them. His remarks on the Boomerang were that it was 'tough, manoeuvrable, and by no means outclassed by its Japanese opposition'.
The fact that a country that in 1940 only had a population of 7 million people was able to put together any kind of fighter in such a short amount of time was pretty remarkable. For perspective, New York City alone had a larger population in 1940 than the entire continent of Australia.
When you close to 250 yards with 20mm cannons and four 303 machine guns, with no effect, there is something seriously wrong. Spitfire eight 303 brownings were effective at 400 yards. P-51d Mustang array of .50 BMG were effective out to 700 yards. The basic vectoring math formula does not compute here. Bettys top spedd: 247 mph. Boomerang top speed; 300 mph. Those two 20mm cannon easily out distance the Bettys rifle calibre defensive machine guns.😮
@@ronaldfinkelstein6335 There is a difference between ending the war and winning the war. The war was already won by the time Enola Gay/Bock Car dropped the bombs. It just served as a reminder of the fact.
Good report but most of the ground troops in the New Guinea were actually Australian. They had the bulk of the fighting and first turned back the Japanese advance at Milne Bay and Kokoda.
Just like their namesake, once they were thrown into the air, they always returned to their thrower with the exception they never brought down any intended victims.
Something has to be corrected here. The Betty had good performance and excellent range and was considered the best land-based naval bomber at the time. But this was achieved by its weak structural lightness and an almost total lack of protection for the crew, with no armor plating or self-sealing fuel tanks. The problems would prove to be a severe drawback, often resulting in heavy losses. Allied fighter pilots nicknamed the G4M "The Flying Lighter" as it was extremely prone to ignition after just a few hits.
In combat testing it outclassed both the P40 and P39 and had a superior climb rate. Boomerang time to 30,000ft 19.9 minutes. Kittyhawk 35.0 min. Airacobra 28.4 min. It would have made a good bomber interceptor.
It wasn't a great fighter but with 2 x 20mm cannons and 4 x 303 machine guns it made a reasonable ground attack aircraft that could hurt ground soldiers and facilities. I would say it hit harder than your average US fighter with 6 x 50 caliber machine guns. The RAAF P-40E/K/M Warhawks and Spitfire Mk VC & VIII handled most of the air combat. Boomerangs carried out reasonable service in Papua New Guinea until replaced by thelatter Warhawks and P-51D Mustangs. The Mighty P-51D Mustang could do it all, fighter, Speed, Attack, long range for the Pacific. A combo of US airframe and British Engines turned out to be a winner. There was another fighter after the Boomerang called the CA-15 Kangaroo of which was a Australian designed airframe that looked like a beefed up P-51D on steroids with three-stage supercharged Griffon engine of which was one of the fastest piston fighters in existent in 1946 a 500 mph beast.....sadly the Jet era came upon us.
If we could have gotten the CAC Kangaroo into the air before the end of the war it would have been the best fighter of WW2, no thanks to our Allies messing us around for years with engines supplies for the aircraft. Also it's pronounced R double A F.
The Boomerang's primary designer was an Austrian Jewish refugee who had worked on designing aircraft for both Heinkel in Germany and Mitsubishi in Japan.
The lead designer of the Boomerang was an German Jew who worked for Heinkel, fled to Japan to work on what became the predecessor to the Zero then designed the Boomerang in a matter of weeks. Hell of an achievement.
The betty bomber was one of the easier aircraft to kill, it lacked armour and self sealing fuel tanks. I’m not sure what ammo the fighters were using, even 303 rounds could deal serious damage to these bombers. If they didn’t shoot them down it was because they were missing.
As with other commenters, the Betty bomber was a powder keg with wings they were easily shot down. 20mm Cannon would have made mince meat out of them. Totally off, you just lost a sub.
very agile plane. Dad used to tell a story of Caldwell in a Boomerang and a Yank (his word) pilot in a kittyhawk doing the same manoeuver and there difference
There is occasional dispute over which was more of a deathtrap with Brewster Buffalo cited as more maneouverable. For full insane deathtrap was the plan to put a supercharger in the tail of the Boomerang with all the fuel lines pressure lines etc the absolute best way to guarantee full destruction with all cumulative factors maybe 100 times more vulnerable than a bullet or fragment in radial engines. P-39 Airocobra hardly wonderful in the Australian squadrons who got hand me downs from the US and never flew them North of Strathpine if anyone can point to anything other than a Japanese submarine launched recon plane flying that far south the RAAF Aircobras can be described as nowhere near a bowl of rice and a chopstick let alone the Japanese. So from mid 42 the early model Aircobra considered worthless and Boomerang was always even more worthless and yet Boomerang stayed in production for the entire length of the war murdering Australians. Boomerang succeeds as the worst propaganda- driven war-profiteering and anything claimed as a virtue just an outrageous part of the myths. Made in Australia by Australian's for Australian conditions just like the Boomerang should be an alarm bell.
It was quite fast at sea level, was well armed & armoured. It came into its own as a "ground attack aircraft". This also happened to a lot of more highly touted "Interceptors" both inWW2 & after. One prominent example was the very beautiful Hawker Hunter.
At the onslaught of WWII. Basically the US was in prepared sure we had equipment but especially after Pearl Harbor we personally were knocked back even more. Australia needed help. They were balsy pilots and everything but they just had to wait for more equipment perhaps better equipment. We finally got to giving Japan a hard time and Australia benefitted. We wanted Japan. Like the war in the European theater. We kind of took the bull by the horn's because our people (soldiers) were thrown into something that essentially wasn't theres. I suppose Australia was lucky in that the zero was flimsy. It didn't protect the pilot and it you could hit them they tore up fairly easily. Anyway my two cents
So, it never shot down any aircraft, but they did chase the enemy away and not successfully complete their mission. The Australians had a good aircraft doing the wrong mission. You use what you have on hand, and they did. Question here. Did all the aircraft that the Aussies put holes into make it home? Or did some decide a saltwater bath was what it needed.
The Boomerang went from first sketch to flying prototype in just four months. Even during WWII this was impressive.
The problem with the Boomerang was lack of a 2 stage supercharger. They used the Pratt and Whitney twin row Wasp, which was the most powerful engine we were making at the time, for locally made Beaufort bombers. It lacked a 2 stage supercharger, but was in reality pushing out the same horsepower as the engine fitted to the Grumman F4F. Eventually 2 experimental Boomerangs were built, designated CA 14 and CA 14A. These aircraft had a GE turbocharger fitted (on loan from the US). The result was a top speed in excess of 345mph, as opposed to the 305mph top speed of the production models. The CA 14A differed from the 14 in as much as it had a "square" empanage (tail). The increase in speed with its already renowned maneuverability gave it a performance considered close to that of a Mk V Spitfire. A request by the Australian govt to license build these turbochargers was refused and the return of the turbocharger on loan was demanded by the US govt. Another "what if" moment
To get a proper view of how maneuverable they were, get a copy of Nannette by Edwards Park. It recounts his experience flying P-39s in New Guinea, they frequently flew escort to CA12, 13 and 19 on ground attack missions. On the return journey there was usually a mock dogfight between the P 39 and the Boomerangs, Park recounts that the Boomerangs could "turn on a dime and were impossible to out maneuver down low".
What was not mentioned in the video was that Fred David (the Boomerangs designer) was a German Jew who fled Germany and went to Japan, when he realised that Japan was going to side with Germany he then went to Australia. During his service with Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation he was regarded by the Govt as an enemy alien and had to report weekly to police.
Design of the Boomerang commenced on the very morning that the news came through of the sinking of HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales off the coast of Malaya, which makes the design commencement date just after 10 December 1941.
I thought they made a Mk2 as well
I agree that if the Boomerang had a 2 stage supercharger the performance, in my Estimation , could have increased the speed to at least 340mph. What do you think?
I wonder why the USA would deny the Aussies a licence to manufacture the GE turbocharger.
After all, they did get a lot of technologies from the Commonwealth, especially the Brits.
@@RUHappyATMmight not have been covered under Lend Lease? I know we broke into the DuPont offices to take licensed from Germany plastics formulas, no record as to if they really did break in or someone just held the door open.
My favorite WW1 trivia was the Germans used British artillery shell fuses without license from Armstrong Sidley but after the war paid a royalty to them based on BRITISH CASUALTIES
@RUHappyATM The US could be difficult about sharing technology with its allies. Look at the Norton bombsight.
Thank you for highlighting this home-grown little beauty. Please please do more videos on Australia's WW2 struggles and efforts.
The mighty Sentinel tank ! ! ! ! !
The first ever tank was Britain's "Little Willie."
And our first tank had a notoriously Big Willy.
Anything that could fly, shoot, and drop bombs was still something, and way better than not having any air support at all. Kudos to the pilots who flew them.
The only engine available was a bomber radial engine, no fighter engines available, did the best with what they had, impressive, thanks for your service.
Bush engineering. No chance of getting the bits you really need, so just look at what you have to hand and say "What can I make with this?".
Not even a sketch, it was when it was officially decided CAC had to design a fighter to first flight. Remarkable achievement.
@@johnhutchinson8950 We shall now proceed to build a battleship out of a bus ticket....
What we wanted and desperately needed, was Spitfires. We did eventually get a small shipment of those, but in the meantime, it was a case of 'Do what you can with what you have.' We had Wirraway trainers, which were chronically slow, and un-armed. We took the technology of the Wirraway, and made a smaller faster version, but it still had the thick low-speed wings, not laminar flow. It was cobbled together in a hurry with the parts we could get. It was 1936 technology, in 1942.
A year later, we started making P-51s under license, and less than a year after that, we made a newer better Australian version of the P-51, called the Dingo. That was quite a good aircraft, and earned a place with the other 'Super-Props' that were being developed at the end of the war. They were all made obsolete by jets.
The Boomerang was not a world beating aircraft, it was a cobbled together effort because it was that or throw rocks at them from the ground. We did the best we could with what we had and what we knew at the time. It was cobbled together from the parts of the WIrraway and the guns we could get. It didn't have the best engine, it didn't have the best guns, it didn't have the best airfoil section, and it sure didn't have the best speed. It was what we could cobble together at the time, with what we had.
Knowledge is awesome thank you for sharing..
One thing I find interesting- both the Wirraway and the US P-64 ( a little known North American fighter) share a surprising resemblance.
However, when you consider both were designed off the same basis - it makes sense
From my U.S. POV, this seems an old, ongoing Aussie story. Do your best with what you have, muddle through, come out on top.
As you mention it was do what you can with available gear. As for the Spitfires operating out of the Darwin area, they had one giant curse on them, the propeller governors. They failed time after time after time leading to the engines overspeeding and if not brought under control swiftly it turned the Merlin engines into scrap iron. The book Darwin Spitfires by Anthony Cooper describes this in detail. It happened so often that it was a miracle they ever got to shoot down any enemy.
Pig Iron told the poms to ignore Australia's order for Spits. Possibly right but possibly yet another example of Menzie's bad choices
The Boomerang was in fact a ground attack fighter, and in that role it excelled.
Check the CAC propaganda at the time - they were labelled interceptors. "Forget the fighters, go for the bombers" - remember Darwin and Broome!
RAAF is known here in Australia as the R-DoubleA-F not R-A-A-F. Just saying.
And we say LEFF-Tennent, not LOO-Tennent.
I reckon he says it like that for the benefit of the subtitles, but yeah, it sounds a little odd to us.
We say "LEFF-Tennent" properly. 😉
It's a AI robot voice, you pick it up on the odd word, this channel is good for that and a metric shit tonne of wrong facts.
also called 'RAFF'
I learn something new with every single video! Thanks for always finding little known topics to educate us with!
I like a fighter plane named Boomerang - it always comes back. 😅
This channel always gets it wrong. I'm pretty sure it's AI bullcrap. 1. The Betty was easy to shoot down, the Japanese sacrificed armour and self sealing tanks for range. 2. and most egregiously, it was the Australians, not the Americans, that cleared Papua New Guinea, with some assistance from generally American engineers. The Australians literally taught the American Army (notably not the Marines) how to fight in the Jungle (look up the fights for Buna, Sanananda and Gona and how pissed the American General MacArthur was with Major General Forrest Harding). It was the Australians, not the Americans, that had the first victory on land against the Japanese (Milne Bay). 3. You also missed that the fighter was put together in 6 weeks or so, the fastest ever development of a fighter. I couldn't watch to the end because of the terrible errors but I suspect you missed it's best role which was ground targeting for our Kiwi brethren in the F4U's. This stuff is easily checked. I'll never watch another Dark Skies Video.
Bloody good heavens sir , I must say , boulder- dash . You limeys are always correct !
How do you do it all alone , constantly ? My God man , simply incredible …😮
I would love to see a movie on the battle for kokoda trail, but you just know Holywood would not be able to get it right.
I don't know of any plane surviving 20mm machine guns rounds?
@@johnmcpherson1713 This movie was already made - Kokoda (2006). Of course is not the usual Hollywood bullshit, but a low budged Australian production. Good movie - based on true history.
In a way is similar to The Thin Red Line.
You have to remember America won everything, it won the Battle of Britain, it sunk the Bismarck, it won the Battle of Leningrad, it won at El Alamein oh and they won the First World War too.
A wonderful workhorse plane which found its role destroying ground assets with deadly accuracy. If Boomerangs had been in sea context they could probably have been torpedo aircraft carrying 2 each and flying in pairs. The lighter type torpedoes would have suited given the plane's very strong climbing rate after release.
The 'Betty' was noted for going up like a torch if hit in the wings because they were full of aviation fuel. This is what gave them long range.
If the Boomerangs had been fitted with small rocket mounts such as were used in the Mosquito they could have caused mayhem by getting inside clumps of 'Betty' bombers and launching in 2 directions per Boomerang pair then lifted or dropped away.
Exploding 'Bettys' could possibly have downed some companions.
I call bovine excrement on this one. Flight Lieutenant Mervyn "Des" Murphy, from No4 Squadron, got a medal for shooting down a Japanese Zero over PNG.
do you have a reference please?
Yes, but didn't he do that flying a Wirraway?
AND a six-pack of beer, if I remember my RAAF lore correctly.
The engine was their third choice.
The only thing available and the development from paper drawing to first flight 14 weeks. Not bad for a first go.
Sturdy construction in a Betty? Surely you jest?
I was wondering about that. The USAAF, USMC, and USN fighter jocks called them *one shot lighters* . That giant 80' + wing has hundreds of gallons of aviation gasoline in non self sealing fuel tanks. A few .50 API hits and you have a giant falling flare.
Yeah I didn't watch the rest of the video...this is dumb.
Compared to the boomerang, perhaps... I love my country, but the plane wasn't very good at all
In reality, they could not get close enough to hit. Boomerang had mediocre engine and too much armor and armament to be effective as a fighter.
@@aleksazunjic9672 Spraying and praying distance, and no pen was the result.
The Boomerang was to leave its mark in latter times in the Pacific war as a ground attack aircraft. Like most heavy and stubby aircraft it carried bombs and rockets well. My dad who was in the Australian Army on Bouganville, helped to guard the airbase at Torakima, and a flight of 'em along with US Marine Corsair's and the short, heavy Aussie planes were thought of very highly for the support they gave the troops.
Hats off to the bloody ozzys for building these things
How the hell could 20mm cannon fire not penetrate a Betty bomber? The Betty wings were large gas tanks. There's more here than meets the eye.
I noted that they opened fire at 250 yards. Too far away for maximum impact. I think the RAF used the same range during the Battle of Britain, but changed the tactic when it was found that those who got in close had more success.
@@markbowman2890 BS!With cannon shells,velocity on impact is irrelevant!
@@pe.bo.5038 Tell that to the pilots who found that closing the range did increase the accuracy and destructive power of their burst. Scientifically, the measurement of Impact is mass times volicity, so with any projectile there is going to be some slowing of volicity due to air resistance etc.
@@markbowman2890👎🤢🤮 Don't lecture me on physics,when you actually have no idea,that a cannon shell has explosive filler,who's fuse explodes on contact-regardless of speed!These same cannons worked pretty well on more stout German planes,and for a reason,Bettys had the nickname "flying zippo"!🤢🤮
@@pe.bo.5038 I don't disregard the explosive element of a canon shell. Damage sustained is the sum total of all the elements combined. What you are implying is that a hunk of metal traveling at great velocity has no bearing on the damage sustained. The thing I probably left out was the number of shells that hit the target at closer range. But that was my point, getting closer than 200 yards will bring about more kills. That is why some pilots aligned their guns for convergence at 100 yards. 303 or 20mm, it is going to make a difference. Therefore, had the Boomerangs held off firing until they were closer, the results may have been better.
Makes me even more proud to be Australian.
The great thing about the Boomerang is that it always returned to where it took off from.
Great stuff; keep it coming!
R.A.A.F. is usually spoken/sounded as "R, double A, F."
A single engine fighter with the same engine as a DC-3, or a B-24 Liberator and many other aircraft. Wow..
I can't wait for the "paper plane that won the war episode"
Not that it could not, it did not. Even our Wirraways shot down Val's, Kate's and a Zero. It was just that better air-to-air fighters became available. A lot of Kiwi Corsairs and RAAF Vengeance aircraft hit important targets marked by Boomerangs! Our top-cover were bloody good too!
Your comment is 100% false
I don't know where you get all your information from
Wirraway shot down 1 plane in it's entire career
Ki-43 Oscar fighter
@@MangoTroubles-007 P.O John Archer shot down a Ki-43 so it COULD shoot down Jap planes. It allowed several Hudsons to get away from the 11th Sentai - a worthwhile effort! 100% false !? - you check yourself, troll!
@@MangoTroubles-007 So is yours. Post war records showed it was a Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa which was nicknamed the "Army Zero" due to it's similarities to the IJN Mitsubishi Zeros'.
The first Australian produced aircraft used in combat would be the earlier CAC Wirraway. Used as a general purpose aircraft, they were pressed into service as attack aircraft in Singapore. 21 Squadron, squadron letter GA were flown in Singapore. A Japanese aviation magazine showed one with a pie plate generator or siren on a pylon from the left fuselage side. Others were used in the failed defense of Rabaul at the same time. One is credited with shooting down a Japanese fighter.
The Wirraway was nothing more than a Texan trainer. Needs must.
@@Steven-p4j But flown by very gallant men. Respect.
I have not heard much about the Boomerang attack plane, but Australia built its own fighter. Is there any pilot who wouldn't enjoy an upgrade from the Bruster Buffalow?
Not sure it was much of an upgrade...
The Fins sure liked the Buffalo
@stephensowell: You never heard much about them because they never achieved anything noteworthy. P-40s, on the other hand, did remarkably well as long as they didn't engage A6Ms Zekes in dogfights.
I noticed how the video skipped over their contributions to the airwar. As long as they were used properly, they worked quite well, especially in China at the hands of the AVG.
Not the Finns! Too late the Aussies (after Singapore and Tjiliatjap) found out that the Hurricane with half fuel and half ammo and an F2A-3 lightened to F2A-1 specs could match and beat a Ki-43 and the Zero..... down low, the Boomerang would have also!
@@damienmaynard8892 Goes to show that you need great technical understanding to use you weapons properly.
Darwin was bombed by the same fleet that bombed Pearl Harbour . The 7th and 9Th Divisions had just left TOBRUK after beating the Germans and Allies to leave Africa and go on and wreck havoc with the Japanese Army.
Thank you for sharing.🙂🙂
Who wrote the script . WTF Sturdy Construction of Betty Bombers . I just lost all respect for anything this channel ever puts out again . If you think I'm over reacting look up the Betty and it's construction . Oh the Boomerang was license built it's bigger brother is much better known
No, it was home grown.
I come to read the comments about all this channel's inaccuracies.
I like to watch the WWII channels, but I sure am getting tired of seeing that every plane, tank, support vehicle, ship, boat, submarine or weapon type won the war. Yes they all won the war, but you really don't need to make it seem that each one did it alone.☹
I know what you mean! Gets frustrating sometimes.
Maybe switch war to battle.. or engagement. But yeah I hear ya
Did the narrator make it seem like the Boomerang won the war? Didn’t seem like it to me.
Snoopy and his Sopwith Camel doghouse won World War One!
Hey we all know only America won WW2 like WW1 the rest of the world just sat back
It's a great looking airplane..
That's the first and only time I've heard of Betty bombers being robust and shrugging off cannon fire. Just a tip for future RAAF documentaries: it's pronounced R-double-A-F, not R A A F 👍
Yes, the Boomerang was slow (just over 300 mph), but surely the G4M Betty was not a sturdy aircraft. Its nickname was "one-shot-lighter" because of unprotected fuel tanks.
It didn't have 7.7 mm machine guns. It had .303 caliber (or "calibre" if you're a subject) machine guns.
That would be the same measurement lol I think they are getting some weird metric sources lol
Both terms are correct.
@@urbancraft2372
Not exactly the same measurement. And the differences matter. Seems like political revisionism seeping into everything lol
@@lancerevell5979
Nope. Neither historically nor practically. They never called them that. And there is a difference between .303 caliber and 7.7 mm practically. It has to do with headspacing and a lot of other issues, but the things are not the same.
and there were 4 of them, something not mentioned. One strange fact, the 20mm canon was reverse engineered from a 20mm canon which had been "souvenired" by an Australian soldier returning from North Africa
27 7 mm brownings? These Boomerangs where packing some heat!!!
Twin 7.7 browning
@@joaoferreira8044 gonna wash my ears out
It actually had 4 x.303 brownings and 2x20mm cannon - all in the wings. 7.7mm is the metric equivalent of .303.
The CAC kangaroo had 4 50s and 2 20mm faster then the Mustangs turned tighter then Spitfires but by the time it got accepted it got cancelled because Jets came
Would it have killed the narrator to have said 7 point 7 mm? Wtf? Lol
3:43 "7.7mm."? The Japanese & Italians had rifle/machinegun cartridges with that designation, but no Allied Power had any. They would have been either .303 British or .30-06, usually called, simply, ".303" or ".30" caliber. Incidentally, to makes things confusing, the ".303" bullet is .311 in. in diameter, the ".30" bullet is .308 in. The difference is due to the British custom of specifying bore diameter from land-to-land, the U.S. practice being groove-to-groove.
So what you’re saying is the .303 is .303 inches but the Yanks mis-measure it? 😅
@@minot.8931 No, there are two methods of measuring bore diameter. Both are correct. The U.S. method. which is employed by most countries, measures bore diameter from groove to groove, the British, from land to land. The U.S. value is also the nominal bullet diameter, since the bullet fills the bore, and the lands cut into it, to grip it & impart its spin. Incidentally, the Russians use the British method. Thus, the 7.62mm X 39mm & 7.62mm X 54Rmm fire slightly larger diameter bullets than the 7.62mm NATO & .30-06.
77mm Machine Guns? WOW!
Yep, better than cannons.
7.7mm Light Machine Guns (LMG) .30 caliber. Some US B25 Mitchell bombers had a 73mm in the nose.
Translates to 7.7cm - competition for the Mosquito Tetse?@@leondillon8723
@@moosifer3321 77mm or 7.7cm is still a cannon. A little bigger than 3 inches. 3" is 76.2mm. The B25Gs had a 75mm M4 cannon in the nose.
I recommended this video only a week or two ago. Did you really get it done so quickly? Or was it already on the drawing board. In either case, well done!
There is so much back and forth on this video, I cant finish it.
Won the war? And what-- pray tell-- did the F6F Hellcat do?
The Boomerang was little more than a pre-war era trainer, but they were tough and had a lot of guns.
The Boomerang's biggest problem was its power plant, which was actually meant for bombers. An upgraded Boomerang with a much better engine was developed but, by the time it was ready for production, Australia was already getting Spitfires and P51 Mustangs in abundance. The logical decision was made to concentrate production on supporting those aircraft, leaving the Boomerang to carry on as a ground attack aircraft, a role at which it excelled.
In all other respects, it was a great little warplane, being agile, well-armed and tough.
Woo ! Uploaded
Betty's weren't that rugged. They were shot down in droves. Ask Admiral Yamamoto. 😂
Agreed. I have _never_ seen or heard the "Betty" described as "durable." It is usually described as a "death trap."
Yeah, the credibility takes a pretty good hit when you spout silliness like that. They were notoriously flammable.
I have read reports in which the "Bettys" were described as "one-hot lighters."
I thought he pitched for the Dodgers
Didn't US pilots call them the "one shot lighter"?
I quote Bill Gunston, who was in WW2, and who, when he wrote about aircraft was usually writing from experience of actually flying them. His remarks on the Boomerang were that it was 'tough, manoeuvrable, and by no means outclassed by its Japanese opposition'.
Good Video.
The fact that a country that in 1940 only had a population of 7 million people was able to put together any kind of fighter in such a short amount of time was pretty remarkable. For perspective, New York City alone had a larger population in 1940 than the entire continent of Australia.
Sturdy construction of the Betty bomber?? Enough of this uninformed ignorance. I’m done…
I thought the G4M1 Betty had a tendancy to burn due to its wings being wet?
The G4M Betty was not known for it's sturdy construction. In fact, it was known as the Flying Lighter
What a great little aircraft,especially as a ground attack aircraft.too slow for a fighter,but potent air support for ground troops.
When you close to 250 yards with 20mm cannons and four 303 machine guns, with no effect, there is something seriously wrong. Spitfire eight 303 brownings were effective at 400 yards. P-51d Mustang array of .50 BMG were effective out to 700 yards.
The basic vectoring math formula does not compute here. Bettys top spedd: 247 mph. Boomerang top speed; 300 mph. Those two 20mm cannon easily out distance the Bettys rifle calibre defensive machine guns.😮
Thank you for the great video 😊 I actually have a model of this aircraft and it's an excellent flyer 😊
Just a small point out air force is pronounced as R double A F.
I dont know of any aircraft that won any war. I know of some that started a war and some that ended one, never known one that won a war.
Some might argue that "Enola Gay" and "Bock's Car" were war winners ..
@@ronaldfinkelstein6335 There is a difference between ending the war and winning the war. The war was already won by the time Enola Gay/Bock Car dropped the bombs. It just served as a reminder of the fact.
Wait Betty , rugged hell nah bro😂
Good report but most of the ground troops in the New Guinea were actually Australian. They had the bulk of the fighting and first turned back the Japanese advance at Milne Bay and Kokoda.
Just like their namesake, once they were thrown into the air, they always returned to their thrower with the exception they never brought down any intended victims.
Something has to be corrected here. The Betty had good performance and excellent range and was considered the best land-based naval bomber at the time. But this was achieved by its weak structural lightness and an almost total lack of protection for the crew, with no armor plating or self-sealing fuel tanks. The problems would prove to be a severe drawback, often resulting in heavy losses. Allied fighter pilots nicknamed the G4M "The Flying Lighter" as it was extremely prone to ignition after just a few hits.
Seventy seven mm machine guns would be field artillery. The .303 cartridge is usually translated as 7.7 mm
In combat testing it outclassed both the P40 and P39 and had a superior climb rate. Boomerang time to 30,000ft 19.9 minutes. Kittyhawk 35.0 min. Airacobra 28.4 min. It would have made a good bomber interceptor.
So many self contradictory statements in these videos. It’s almost like they’re made by AI.
It wasn't a great fighter but with 2 x 20mm cannons and 4 x 303 machine guns it made a reasonable ground attack aircraft that could hurt ground soldiers and facilities.
I would say it hit harder than your average US fighter with 6 x 50 caliber machine guns.
The RAAF P-40E/K/M Warhawks and Spitfire Mk VC & VIII handled most of the air combat.
Boomerangs carried out reasonable service in Papua New Guinea until replaced by thelatter Warhawks and P-51D Mustangs.
The Mighty P-51D Mustang could do it all, fighter, Speed, Attack, long range for the Pacific.
A combo of US airframe and British Engines turned out to be a winner.
There was another fighter after the Boomerang called the CA-15 Kangaroo of which was a Australian designed airframe that looked like a beefed up P-51D on steroids with three-stage supercharged Griffon engine of which was one of the fastest piston fighters in existent in 1946 a 500 mph beast.....sadly the Jet era came upon us.
It might have been the best prop fighter of WWII
The old Kangaroo.
The RAAF are referred to as the R double AA, F. 😊
If we could have gotten the CAC Kangaroo into the air before the end of the war it would have been the best fighter of WW2, no thanks to our Allies messing us around for years with engines supplies for the aircraft. Also it's pronounced R double A F.
Kermit Weakes is getting one restored in Brisbane Australia ,
There are a couple already flying, and a replica flying in Europe.
@@TheWombat40 yeah ,was aware of that.
The Boomerang's primary designer was an Austrian Jewish refugee who had worked on designing aircraft for both Heinkel in Germany and Mitsubishi in Japan.
The lead designer of the Boomerang was an German Jew who worked for Heinkel, fled to Japan to work on what became the predecessor to the Zero then designed the Boomerang in a matter of weeks. Hell of an achievement.
The top view of his fire shows that it basically had swept back wings
The betty bomber was one of the easier aircraft to kill, it lacked armour and self sealing fuel tanks.
I’m not sure what ammo the fighters were using, even 303 rounds could deal serious damage to these bombers.
If they didn’t shoot them down it was because they were missing.
Strange that UK did not set up a factory to build Spitfire fighters in Australia before WWII.
They kept sending them out, and they kept coming back....
As with other commenters, the Betty bomber was a powder keg with wings they were easily shot down. 20mm Cannon would have made mince meat out of them.
Totally off, you just lost a sub.
Hey, let's see a show about the Brewster Buffalo!!!❤
Ground control: Boomerang whats your altitude??
Bommerang: 5th and Main, just outside the woolworths
You talk about the "sturdy" G4M Betty, "The flying cigar"? Those idjit materials... :/
No me imagino una pelicula en wk cine, CON ESOS SUBTITULOSSSSS.......AHHHH
Wk es el....
When and why is there music now?
very agile plane. Dad used to tell a story of Caldwell in a Boomerang and a Yank (his word) pilot in a kittyhawk doing the same manoeuver and there difference
JOHN STONE
The airocobra was a massive underrated fighter. It had great success if Russia as a ground to air attack fighter.
Just as the Boomerang did in Australian service.
My boomerang wont shoot back......
It looks like a miniature Curtis P-36 “Hawk.”
Looks like Brewster Buffalo?
Not at all!
thanks for a good and informative video
Those Betty’s were flaming coffins but they did carry 20mm (name another bomber of WW2 that carried them? )
2 possible stupid questions. Did they concentrate their fire on the bombers' engines? Or the cockpits?
There is occasional dispute over which was more of a deathtrap with Brewster Buffalo cited as more maneouverable. For full insane deathtrap was the plan to put a supercharger in the tail of the Boomerang with all the fuel lines pressure lines etc the absolute best way to guarantee full destruction with all cumulative factors maybe 100 times more vulnerable than a bullet or fragment in radial engines. P-39 Airocobra hardly wonderful in the Australian squadrons who got hand me downs from the US and never flew them North of Strathpine if anyone can point to anything other than a Japanese submarine launched recon plane flying that far south the RAAF Aircobras can be described as nowhere near a bowl of rice and a chopstick let alone the Japanese. So from mid 42 the early model Aircobra considered worthless and Boomerang was always even more worthless and yet Boomerang stayed in production for the entire length of the war murdering Australians. Boomerang succeeds as the worst propaganda- driven war-profiteering and anything claimed as a virtue just an outrageous part of the myths. Made in Australia by Australian's for Australian conditions just like the Boomerang should be an alarm bell.
At least the Boomerang was better than the Brewster Buffalo!
We pronounce R A A F as "The R - double A - F".....simples.
Is it fast and maneuverable or at least armored? If it can't shoot down other planes, we can just replace those guns with bombs.
It was quite fast at sea level, was well armed & armoured. It came into its own as a "ground attack aircraft". This also happened to a lot of more highly touted "Interceptors" both inWW2 & after. One prominent example was the very beautiful Hawker Hunter.
@@bryanwheeler1608 Yeah and the infamous Typhoon lol.
They should have used them for ground attack only as eventually mentioned herein.
At the onslaught of WWII. Basically the US was in prepared sure we had equipment but especially after Pearl Harbor we personally were knocked back even more. Australia needed help. They were balsy pilots and everything but they just had to wait for more equipment perhaps better equipment. We finally got to giving Japan a hard time and Australia benefitted. We wanted Japan. Like the war in the European theater. We kind of took the bull by the horn's because our people (soldiers) were thrown into something that essentially wasn't theres. I suppose Australia was lucky in that the zero was flimsy. It didn't protect the pilot and it you could hit them they tore up fairly easily. Anyway my two cents
The Boomerang was "sort of" an attempt at an "Australian Zero", but it was heavier due to the armour plate protection for the pilot.
So, it never shot down any aircraft, but they did chase the enemy away and not successfully complete their mission. The Australians had a good aircraft doing the wrong mission. You use what you have on hand, and they did.
Question here.
Did all the aircraft that the Aussies put holes into make it home? Or did some decide a saltwater bath was what it needed.
Shame is a warthunder premium i wanna fly it
It's pronounced R double A F. Not R, A, A, F. cheers
If they couldn't shoot down a betty, they must have been firing a BB gun. the Betty was known as a one shot lighter!
Complimentary algorithm enhancement type of a comment!😊
"Won the War"