F.A.Q Section - Ask your questions here :) Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: How do you decide what aircraft gets covered next? A: Supporters over on Patreon now get to vote on upcoming topics such as overviews, special videos, and deep dives. Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Would you ever do a collaboration with Paper Skies. Crap Soviet Aircraft, "When Dachas go to war" I'd love that, especially with his graphics, which are always great.
Form following function is rarely an ideal philosophy in aircraft design. Form has to be as slippery as possible with function fitting in where it can.
Yepp.. Function: aircraft -> form: shoe box. Also the general mindset is just..💩 "We expect bomber attacks, how do we respond; we send out OUR bombers & who scores more hits wins the war, like the battleship game"
"The French really loved the design principle of "form follows function" Unfortunately for them, they forgot that you first need to pick a function." That is an amusingly suitable description of the French interwar airforce developments...
I absolutely love the French's staunch adherence to this idea of a "forward parapet" on EVERYTHING. Its like they viewed aerial combat as some quasi-medival contest between rival castles.
I now officially consider these two videos as the sequels we didn't know we needed to Drachinifel's video on French Pre-Dreadnoughts. It's always fun to have a good laught while learning on interesting topics and for this, thank you Rex! We want more!
Deepest compliments on the pronunciation of 'Bloch'. He was from the Alsace region and it did sound a bit German, hence he changed it after the war to... Dassault.
I saw a documentary somewhere on Dassault. If I remember correctly the name came from Bloch's brother who died as a member of the resistance. The brother's nom de guerre was "Dassault", and Bloch renamed the company in his brother's honor.
@pithicus52 Mostly correct. Except that the brother survived the war (he died in 1969). Darius Paul Dassault was Marcel's eldest brother and graduated from the Ecole Polytechnique in 1903. He joined the French Army not long after the Dreyfuss Affair (his family was Jewish) and served mainly in the artillery (as had Dreyfuss) and headed various technical schools. He rose through the ranks and was a Corps General in command of the Army's antiaircraft artillery. He was given command of the Fifth Army in 1940 and evaded German captivity after France surrendered. His main nom de'guerre was "Chardasso", which was derived from the French term char d'asaault (assault tank). After the war, Marcel adopted the name in a gesture symbolizing rebirth (he had almost died at Buchenwald), and the brother followed suit.
Part of the reason to rename Marcel Bloch (MB) to Dassault Aviation was that in 1940 French bomber pilots (I met one, who confirmed) nicknamed the Bloch twin-engined recon/bombers, notably MB.131, as the Flying Coffins. The writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry barely survived flak damage during a reconnaissance flight on Arras with his MB.174, which he managed to bring back. This led to his novel "Pilote de guerre". Anyway, the Bloch/MB brand did not earn a enviable combat reputation. Incidentally, Bloch is a Jewish name with a German sound to it, and French population had been pervaded with antisemitic propaganda, especially during German and Mal Pétain rule. And the others hated whatever sounded German. All in all, rebranding the company and his owner seemed better marketing...
Yeh they just cost a interwar airforce in price per unit ........... Great value ......... That's why our roads resemble potholes these days and other lack of public funds
@@mathewkelly9968good point but does depend on the country. Defence spending as a proportion of GDP is pretty low these days, the bigger issue with poor infrastructure is not whether defence spending is taking money away from infrastructure but who is in control of infrastructure. In the UK for example, the majority of infrastructure projects - including maintenance - use private contractors who must turn a profit. Profit in something as fundamental as building roads (for example) is incompatible with providing something good that lasts as the cheapest methods and materials will be used to fulfil the terms of the contract over its lifetime. It's a very similar situation to things like right to repair, built-in obscelesence and so on.
@@wbertie2604most important thing in nowdays multirole fighter can be Big,heavy and also agile. Something that multirole twin engine heavy fighter at that era could not do.
Rex, you said something very odd "to avoid this video getting too long". No such thing except with respect to your vocal health. And thank you for not employing an uncanny valley AI for the narration.
Have you SEEN a Drachinifel Patreon answers drydock video? As babies, they were reaching two hours, then they ran to 4+ hour in their teen years, and some got as long as 6+ hours before he started splitting them in two in some kind of UA-cam mitosis.
@@MonkeyJedi99 I've seen some of his non Patreon stuff. I'm not interested enough in ships to pay. For aircraft content of that length I might pay given the cost of the books Rex uses as sources plus he has the will to go through the ones in Italian, etc. Ideally, there'd be a 2-for-1 with Gregg's Airplanes. :)
@@wbertie2604 Sorry I was not more verbose. The Drydock answers of his patrons' questions are still free videos on UA-cam. The Patreon gives people better access to getting their questions answered once a month. - But if you don't have that much interest in ships, that's fine. No shade cast upon your path. - Do you watch much Ed Nash content? I have seen those videos come up in my recommended once or twice, but I have not watched any yet.
@@MonkeyJedi99 I watch Ed's stuff too (there's another Ed too - Armoured Archives - lots of primary research). I slightly prefer Rex's stuff as it tends to be a deeper dive and really good secondary sources.
I love those early French BCR bomber designs, especially the ones with the large glass aquariums in the bottom. The French were so thoughtful to take their pet goldfish to war with them to make certain they were looked after and well fed.
Rex, You are mad. What a massive comprehensive unbelievably fantastic piece of history. This has just become my most favorite of all time. Thank you and good work.
Excellent video, Rex. You hit the nail on every single problem the French had at the time. The organizational part of the run up to war kept many outdated features still being prevalent on more modern designs, such as the 300-round drums for the MAC-1934 on fighters, no insulation from cold (or heat) for many of the aircraft systems, unreliable oxygen, radio and navigation sets and poor engine power output. Many aircraft lacked gunsights, propellers, radios and could not be shipped to the unit. Or were shipped in an incomplete state and then finished at unit level IF they had the spares. There was an scathing article regarding the overall picture in one of the old Aerojournal magazines, some twenty years ago. The authors didn't hold back, mate. I'll tell you that. Cheers.
I think the most common statement regarding aircraft development I've heard on this channel is "[plane] was designed to operate with the [model] engine, but that was unavailable, so it first flew/deployed with [crappier] engine(s) instead."
The arc of fire was inside the rudders on the LeO451. The choice of twin tails *was* to keep the rear firing arc clear. In the case of the LeO451, there were some ... interesting aerodynamics in play, almost all of which were undesirable. Liore et Olivier were trying to keep the rudders in the airflow from the props to preserve some semblance of controllability at low speeds. Unfortunately, they failed, leading to a series of redesigns of the rudders that increased height and surface area, but never solved the problem of lateral instability. The 451 had an unfortunately high accident rate/operational attrition rate. There were also effects from the downwash from the wings, especially when exaggerated by the flaps during takeoff and landing. This directed much of the airflow away from the rudders. That's not even getting into the big problems with the 451.
I probably should have mentioned that the arc of the un-enclosed hydraulic turret was limited by width of the fuselage of all of the bombers it was fitted in. The LeO 451 was particularly egregious because it was so narrow and so tall. It's not as obvious as the Handley-Page Hampden, but it was a bit of a flying suitcase. Wider firing arcs for the Hispano-Suiza cannon also ran into the aerodynamic drag problems that caused the failure of the later RAF turret fighter projects. The barrel was so d$%& long that the drag pulled the tail sideways, which not only made the aircraft difficult to fly but made aiming a bit of a joke.
@@Shinzon23ooh, that bad?? I haven’t tried Warthunder yet, so far best I’ve tried is a flight simulator where I flew an SR-71 over Catalina Island, then overshot the runway and landed in the lobby of the Coronado Hotel 😂
@@patricia1333 Honestly, I'd take that excuse to visit the Coronado Hotel. It's splendid (and you can just walk into the lobby and wander the grounds.)
Hi Rex, I want to say you some very, very compliments for picking up this "european" subject. I my self was very interested in aviation since I was able to spend some money in English written documentaries about military aviation of pre war years and until end of WW2 . Then I was about 18 . Your deep diving research in French aviation "circumstances" ( which I apreciateed very, very much, so now I was comprehending what led to the poor apperance to counter Nazi und Italien threat). My most documentary consits of ten small booklets from William Green " War planes of the second world war" by MacDonalds in London from 1967. There it was only mentioned of the detorieted state of the French government and the outcome. Now I can understand the different ways it come out. So I want you to say again, I'm very thankful to fill my knowledge about it. Unfortunately I can´t support you by Patreon, because I've to struggle with my pension to make ends meet. Bye Gerd
An absolutely terrific, gripping and witty video with clear exposition of a fascinating period of aviation history.. I sense you finding intellectual space in the longer format. As a writer and researcher myself (though not video-maker nor connected to aircraft) I appreciate exactly what has gone into the production before you even begin to assemble the images and record the text. Your efforts are hugely appreciated. Keep 'em coming.
The RAF and USAAC both had their fights between fighter and bomber policy and some poorly-conceived multi-place and multi-role aircraft. Fast forward a few years and the Luftwaffe was pressing even what was ostensibly a heavy bomber, the Do. 217 into service as a nightfighter. At least the UK gave up trying to turn the Wellington into one.
@HenryLafayette In terms of German definition (which is why I used the word 'ostensibly') it was a heavy, although it would have been a medium by RAF definition of the period.
@HenryLafayette 217 not 215. The 217 was for Bomber B and technically, in Luftwaffe terms, a heavy bomber. The 215 is a completely different aircraft. The Allied heavy bomber doctrine was based on deterrence to prevent aggression by threatening a knock out blow on the means of production which turned out to be a wildly over optimistic concept. It wasn't a doctrine of aggression, though.
P.S. by RAF and USAAF standards the Do. 217 was a medium bomber but still a heavy in Luftwaffe terms. Again, this is why the word ostensibly in my original comment is key. It's also why I made the comparison to the Wellington, although the Do. 217's maximum bomb load was roughly twice that of the Wellington and equivalent to the P.13/36 RAF medium bomber specification that led to the Manchester. But still, in terms of RLM definitions, it was a heavy bomber.
Sort of the same happened with the French interwar small arms procurement program I think. Only after WW1 did the French finally develop a modern 7.5 mm rimless rifle / machinegun cartidge to replace their obsolete 8 mm rimmed Lebel cartidge, used in the ancient Lebel rifle and in the less obsolete Berthier rifle. The French had been experimenting with semi-automatic rifles even before WW1 (and did field one design during that war in small numbers). The problem with the 8 mm Lebel cartridge was that it wasn't really suited for (semi) automatic firearms. They developed a nice light machinegun for the new cartridge, the M24/29, and were trying to come up with a semi-automatic rifle. They wanted to get rid of the Lebels and Berthiers and while waiting for a semi-automatic, they developed and produced the MAS-36 bolt action rifle - I believe one of the last new bolt action rifles ever to be designed. Of course, the German war plans intervened with the French plans. Although a lot of effort and design work had been put into it, by 1940 there was still no "'French Garand''. The MAS-36 which was planned to equip 2nd line troops, had not even completely replaced the old WW1 rifles. A standard semi-automatic rifle for everyone would not appear until years after WW2.
The British followed this pattern too. The Farquhar Hill semi automatic rifle was developed during Ww1 but fell pray to post war cost cutting. This ultimately led to the British using the Enfield rifle into the 50's before adopting there license built FN model. Purely down to spending issues.
There was a 'French Garand' in 1940, the MAS-40, which was issued in small numbers prior to May. The MAS-49 (original) is pretty much the same rifle but with a detachable magazine. There was also a small production run of MAS-44, IIRC.
@@1bert719 in the late 1930s the issue wasn't spending so much as not embarking on a project that wouldn't complete before war began. The individual rifle was seen as a less important element as the section was built around the Bren. Serious consideration was given to moving all machine guns to 7.92mm prior to WW2 but it was seen as too complex as a section would then have a mix of types as converting several million SMLEs as well as No. 4s wasn't really viable. And that was more about having a single calibre so riflemen could give up ammunition for the Bren.
The MAS-36 was designed to have maximum parts and training compatibility with the MAS-40 and to allow replacement of Berthiers (although there were still a few Lebels about).
@@wbertie2604 Your correct in regards to tactical doctrine of the 30's. (My reference) The Farquhar Hill rifle was completed in 1918 and used in trials prior to the armistice, after this there was no real enthusiasm to adopt an expensive unit they hoped they would never need and had a surplus of other types. Check it out as it's quite an interesting piece of hardware.
Each of these breakdowns I watch I realise how much communication is a limiting factor in development in general. Why do they need the plane, what does it need to do, how many bolts, sticks and rolls of tape they have to make it. It's like watching a multitude of instances of operation wikinger take place on a smaller scale. But it also shows how fast people are learning after each omega cock-up so that's kinda neat to see also! To me, this is a large part of the fun in learning about airplane development, so I appreciate you including this angle on occasion, Rex!
It's crazy how they were treating heavy bombers the way we are now treating atomic boombooms. "If we have enough of them, nobody would be foolish enough to start a war."
Yep -though hopefully we never have a war that disproved atomic deterrence the way strategic bombing deterrence was repeatedly disproved. The tonnage of bombs that interwar theorists were suggesting would result in utter capitulation was laughably low when compared to the daily tonnages actually dropped on London, Germany, and Japan cities. One 1928 estimate was that just 300 tons of bombs dropped on major cities would end a war; yet even a blitz raid (far smaller than the later Allied bombing raids) might drop over six times that in a single night. Civilian moral and political will were just far more resilient that strategic bombing theorists assumed. And even during the war proponents kept saying that if just a bit more was dropped that would win the war; and kept being wrong.
A lot of British interwar civil and military planning was done on the assumption that Luftwaffe bombers would inflict something like 700k casualties in the first week of attacks on London
Seriously, great work! Many thanks. While the first part was like a series of growing pains and had its cringe-inducing decisions on the part of the French, this second part was an absolute descent into madness. And that final chapter, with the terrifyingly inevitable last-gasp race to the line, was just tragic. I kept hoping, against all known facts of the historical outcome, that the French Government and aeronautical industry was going to get its act together in time... but no, not quite! My heart was actually in my mouth as I saw genuinely good aircraft appearing - and then not making up squadrons before time ran out. Again, amazing work and I can't wait to see some of those late-30s French light & medium bombers get their own videos. And I'd be totally happy if they were deep dives too - never worry about your videos running long on our behalf - I think we all love it. - Also, RIP Rex's voice box.
For me it's still hard to believe that Marcel Bloch who designed the Bloch abominations in the 1930s is also Marcel Dassault who led the development of the Mirages as well as French and Israeli missiles.
Which Type of Bomber flew Antoine de Saint Exupery in His novel "flight to Arras" ? IT was a reconnaissance Mission, night against the progressing Wehrmacht.
I am startled how the Amiots, Blochs and LeO's after years of building aeronautical monstrosities, suddenly got their act together to create not only fast but also very goodlooking airplanes.
Thanks for covering the Interwar French bombers. I’ve always loved them for their jankyness and just over all ugliness. It’s fantastic you have similar love of these fantastic and terrible aircraft
Most were ugly enough to make a freight train back up and take a different track... but they make such interesting and impressive models. I believe that Heller released many kits of these flying greenhouses (and many of the later, saner-looking types) in 1/72 scale at one point.
At around 1:19:06 you use a photo of a US-built Martin Model 167F (in which the F stands for 'French') instead of the MB.131. I believe you used the same photo earlier in the video. It's quite distinctive due to the different landing gear and the engines. France ordered around 200 of these, with instrumentation in metric. In French service, they were designated Glenn Martin 167 A-3. The RAF used the Model 167 as well and called it the Maryland. Some aircraft from the order for the French Air Force were converted to imperial instrumentation and delivered to Britain after the fall of France. They also differed in other minor details and defensive armament (i.e. twin drum fed .303cal Vickers GO guns in the ventral and dorsal positions).
Fascinating and complex history. Thanks for tackling the subject. I have to say I like the look of these French aircraft, impractical as they may have been. Something steam punkish maybe. Carry on with the good work.
Nothing like a new upload to delay going to bed. Oh well it looks like my new bedtime is 1:30 am. Yes I know I can watch it later after i have woken up, but having sleep issues at the moment so this is a good distraction.
Man I love your videos. You present the content in such an engaging way, time literally flies. Short or long, your videos are top quality (and rather addicting) !
Congratulations ! The research for and correlation of information on this topic must have been EPIC ! Although I'm not an aircraft nerd, I thoroughly enjoyed both videos on this topic, and look forward to whatever comes next ! I'm glad I'm subscribed to your channel, and regret I'm financially unable to become a Patron. (O.A.P.!) Thanks !
What a fantastic look into a very little discussed bit of aviation history. Just a grand example of the wrong people making decisions on things they did not truly understand.
You did much more than a good job! As my father was French I can only thank you for your excellent research and the coverage of this difficult and complicated subject. Thanks again
This was quite the worthy effort. As a history buff, it filled in the gaps and increased my understanding of the French war effort at the start of WWII. I didn't know if I was going to make it through the first hour, but you kept it entertaining and the time flew by. 👍
Well done, mate! A bit of a slog for ya but I appreciate your attention to detail. I've been into aircraft since I was 4 years old (58 now) but I never really followed French, let alone early French aircraft development. So this was a rare treat. Thank you!
The French predilection for.. questionable design aesthetics is not confined to the air. I refer you to Drachenifel’s superb presentation on UA-cam ‘When Hotels Go To Sea’ which pertains to the odd French decisions relating to their navy prior to the Great War.
1:05. It wasn't only the airforce that suffered multiple small batches instead of a large order. Just look at tank (char) production. France entered the war with 2 AMC, 2 AMR, 2 FCM, 3 Hotchkiss, a half dozen Renault, and a Somua tank model. And only two of these were really modern designs, the Somua S35 and the Renault B1. The few times that they could amass the S35s and B1s against the German invasion they were very successful, but lots of little tanks spread around to every infantry division doomed the effectiveness of their armor.
The B1 was very much not a modern design - it was a committee cut and shut of mid 20s designs with a turret shoved on top.Some of the light tanks were very much more modern. The other medium, the D2 wasn't very modern. The S35 wasn't too bad. There were a couple of excellent armoured cars.
In terms of doctrine, the DLRs concentrated tanks and were more or less like Panzer divisions. The light tanks allocated out in infantry divisions were to make the best of personnel numbers and are a bit like two person exoskeletons in concept. The concept was flawed, though. Making tanks into behemoths with huge guns didn't work either and was another response to manpower issues.
Thank you for an excellent video!!! What strikes me the most,by a lot of historic videos i've seen,is the in -ability of motor producing industry in Europe to supply a fitting engines to any airplane in due time!!!
Having been in the engine business for more than 40 years, I can assure you that engines take longer to develop than any other part of an aircraft (or any other vehicle). We in the business mostly regard the vehicles as mobile test platforms for our creations. On the other side of the coin, vehicle designers want propulsion systems that cost nothing, weigh nothing, don't occupy any space, or burn any fuel.
Rex - the Drachinifel of the skies! I really enjoyed this French interwar documents. My only problem is, that I have an urge to identify every plane in every photo, so when you use some illustration photo from a factory I am pausing the video and searching in all my interwar plane monographies in hopeless effort to find it :)
Appreciate your hard work. I'm picky about subscribing to channels and after you did work with Drach I figured you were a good bet. Paid off.Thanks again .
During WW1 French industry was the locomotive which carried Allies to Victory, and their Army was the spine. US forces came late, and were largely equipped with French weapons. Too much blood spilled, France fully recuperated from Great War only in 1950s. They bled themselves white 1914-1918. In addition the French domestic politics which were, and are near fist fighting.
This commentary is too good and too based on facts...the rest of the people commenting prefers stereotypes like the ''hotels go to war'' of Drachnifels', the ''French copy no one, no one copy the French'' ad nauseum...either way, congrats, someone is knowing what he is talking about.
@@Balrog2005 Thanks. Great War is left behind shadow of WW2, and so is French crucial contribution to victory. In 1914-15 war in land was in practice France vs Germany. Germany had well over 50% larger population than France, and highly competent army and industry. Brits had way little number of troops on land war, and every time Russians tried anything, they were outmanouvred by Germans (plus Austro-Hungary shared front there with Germans). France managed to raise troops, fight as only major player in west for years, supply its own troops and in large part later arm Americans with battlelines going smack middle of most industrialized part of France. The price of those 4 years cant be measured. Whole generation of men had died or wounded, and most of NE France was in ruins. France did benefit of baby boom only after WW2.
I feel like the countries that were banned from/couldnt afford to develop a significant mechanised combat arm in the 20s in the aftermath of ww1 dodged a bullet in spending valouable resources, and perhaps more importantly tieing their production base and doctrine to equipment that would swiftly become outdated in the climate of extremely rapid military development in the era. The french suffered seriously from this in numerous areas, airpower included.
Yes, great comment. They were able, at least partly, to sit on the sidelines and avoid costly mistakes. Then, when the direction of travel became more obvious and with less cumbersome political systems, make accurate choices.
Great job! Liking the historic context and generalized commentaries on such a complex subject. Better than the old joke “French rifle for sale; only dropped once” 😂
Excellent narrative. Not only explaining France’s main airforce issues as 1940 arrived, but also pointing out its contribution to the overall military failures in Poland & The Rhineland, the absence of a force that could have been an effective deterrent. This military weakness in build strategy (aided by periods of disarmament & economic depression) is the other component (alongside the philosophical) contributing to the disjointed Entente appeasement policy of the time. Its important not to miss this message from history under the many political excuses of this period 😼
The French bombers remind me of a period of French cruisers that resembled floating hotels more than warships. Drachinefel did a video on them a while back
Thanks for all the research you have done on this subject, great channel! To sum up, the French bombers didn't work out well in combat conditions. BTW, the French had political leaders of different sides throughout the 30s, like a liberal was in power for a few months, the government collapsed and then a more center government would take charge for the next few months, rinse and repeat. Hard to get a cohesive military under that political change (kind of like now in places).
Thanks for another aeronautical gem Rex. Many of the twin engine BCRs and bombers discussed featured "handed" propellers, for example at 47:21 the Potez 540's port (#1) prop rotates anti-clockwise when viewed from ahead and the starboard (#2) prop rotates clockwise. I assume this was to avoid having a "critical" engine in the event of a single-engine failure. Any thoughts anyone?
Loved this, thanks very much. Sorry to be an anorak but I believe the aircraft shown at 1:19:08 with the guys in the berets might actually be a Martin Maryland
I don't know if anyone else was reduced to this reaction to this video, but I spent practically the whole running time sadly shaking my head at the complete fiasco that it described!
F.A.Q Section - Ask your questions here :)
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: How do you decide what aircraft gets covered next?
A: Supporters over on Patreon now get to vote on upcoming topics such as overviews, special videos, and deep dives.
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Would you ever do a collaboration with Paper Skies. Crap Soviet Aircraft, "When Dachas go to war"
I'd love that, especially with his graphics, which are always great.
Q: Would you be open to cover the British Fury?
salut merci pour cette exellente video , pourrais tu nous parler de la chasse française et du D520 et de l arsenal vg 33 ?
Very informative and interesting as always.
Do you have a series like this for French fighter aircraft? If not, are you planning to make one?
The French really loved the design principle of "form follows function"
Unfortunately for them, they forgot that you first need to pick a function.
The engineers asked which function the air arm wanted their planes to fulfil, and the answers they got was "Yes"
Form following function is rarely an ideal philosophy in aircraft design. Form has to be as slippery as possible with function fitting in where it can.
Yepp.. Function: aircraft -> form: shoe box.
Also the general mindset is just..💩 "We expect bomber attacks, how do we respond; we send out OUR bombers & who scores more hits wins the war, like the battleship game"
"The French really loved the design principle of "form follows function"
Unfortunately for them, they forgot that you first need to pick a function."
That is an amusingly suitable description of the French interwar airforce developments...
@@DIREWOLFx75 The function was confused and so was the form lol!
I absolutely love the French's staunch adherence to this idea of a "forward parapet" on EVERYTHING. Its like they viewed aerial combat as some quasi-medival contest between rival castles.
Kinda like a stuff upper lip.
Makes one wonder if DeGaulle's nose had an effect on such designs.
I was for taunting their opponents with, "I laugh in your direction, you silly English K-nigget"
"YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMPSTER, AND YOUR FATHER SMELLED OF ELDERBERRIES!!"
And naval warfare a battle between hotels.
I now officially consider these two videos as the sequels we didn't know we needed to Drachinifel's video on French Pre-Dreadnoughts. It's always fun to have a good laught while learning on interesting topics and for this, thank you Rex! We want more!
My thoughts exactly. Instead of hotels going to war, we have furniture vans taking to the sky.
They both remind me of a saying I've heard about French engineering: "The French copy no one, and no one copies the French".
I recommend watching The Chieftain's videos on the tanks too,so you can fully understand the shitshow.
Deepest compliments on the pronunciation of 'Bloch'. He was from the Alsace region and it did sound a bit German, hence he changed it after the war to... Dassault.
I saw a documentary somewhere on Dassault. If I remember correctly the name came from Bloch's brother who died as a member of the resistance. The brother's nom de guerre was "Dassault", and Bloch renamed the company in his brother's honor.
@pithicus52 Mostly correct. Except that the brother survived the war (he died in 1969). Darius Paul Dassault was Marcel's eldest brother and graduated from the Ecole Polytechnique in 1903. He joined the French Army not long after the Dreyfuss Affair (his family was Jewish) and served mainly in the artillery (as had Dreyfuss) and headed various technical schools. He rose through the ranks and was a Corps General in command of the Army's antiaircraft artillery. He was given command of the Fifth Army in 1940 and evaded German captivity after France surrendered. His main nom de'guerre was "Chardasso", which was derived from the French term char d'asaault (assault tank). After the war, Marcel adopted the name in a gesture symbolizing rebirth (he had almost died at Buchenwald), and the brother followed suit.
Part of the reason to rename Marcel Bloch (MB) to Dassault Aviation was that in 1940 French bomber pilots (I met one, who confirmed) nicknamed the Bloch twin-engined recon/bombers, notably MB.131, as the Flying Coffins. The writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry barely survived flak damage during a reconnaissance flight on Arras with his MB.174, which he managed to bring back. This led to his novel "Pilote de guerre".
Anyway, the Bloch/MB brand did not earn a enviable combat reputation. Incidentally, Bloch is a Jewish name with a German sound to it, and French population had been pervaded with antisemitic propaganda, especially during German and Mal Pétain rule. And the others hated whatever sounded German. All in all, rebranding the company and his owner seemed better marketing...
@@SPavlo
Jewish it very much *is* .
The idea of designing something to fill multiple roles sounds great when actually making the thing work is someone else's job.
Or when technology allows.
More Shakespeare! "The Mosquito. Though she be but little, she is fierce!" "Alas, poor Maginot. I knew him well."
"A concept of infinite jest."
@@jonathancunningham2191Modernized to "A concept of infinite jets."
I dunno, the maginot line wasn't the problem but everything else, imo.
For me, the great irony of the failure of the multipurpose aircraft is that, _today_ , pretty much all modern combat aircraft are multipurpose...
Yeh they just cost a interwar airforce in price per unit ........... Great value ......... That's why our roads resemble potholes these days and other lack of public funds
@@mathewkelly9968good point but does depend on the country. Defence spending as a proportion of GDP is pretty low these days, the bigger issue with poor infrastructure is not whether defence spending is taking money away from infrastructure but who is in control of infrastructure. In the UK for example, the majority of infrastructure projects - including maintenance - use private contractors who must turn a profit. Profit in something as fundamental as building roads (for example) is incompatible with providing something good that lasts as the cheapest methods and materials will be used to fulfil the terms of the contract over its lifetime. It's a very similar situation to things like right to repair, built-in obscelesence and so on.
@@mathewkelly9968nor does most european airforces operate over 2000 planes today, including the costs of pilots equiptment ec.t
Better engine power makes multipurpose easier
@@wbertie2604most important thing in nowdays multirole fighter can be Big,heavy and also agile. Something that multirole twin engine heavy fighter at that era could not do.
Rex, you said something very odd "to avoid this video getting too long". No such thing except with respect to your vocal health. And thank you for not employing an uncanny valley AI for the narration.
Have you SEEN a Drachinifel Patreon answers drydock video?
As babies, they were reaching two hours, then they ran to 4+ hour in their teen years, and some got as long as 6+ hours before he started splitting them in two in some kind of UA-cam mitosis.
@@MonkeyJedi99 I've seen some of his non Patreon stuff. I'm not interested enough in ships to pay. For aircraft content of that length I might pay given the cost of the books Rex uses as sources plus he has the will to go through the ones in Italian, etc. Ideally, there'd be a 2-for-1 with Gregg's Airplanes. :)
@@wbertie2604 Sorry I was not more verbose. The Drydock answers of his patrons' questions are still free videos on UA-cam. The Patreon gives people better access to getting their questions answered once a month.
-
But if you don't have that much interest in ships, that's fine. No shade cast upon your path.
-
Do you watch much Ed Nash content? I have seen those videos come up in my recommended once or twice, but I have not watched any yet.
@@MonkeyJedi99 I watch Ed's stuff too (there's another Ed too - Armoured Archives - lots of primary research). I slightly prefer Rex's stuff as it tends to be a deeper dive and really good secondary sources.
@@wbertie2604 Thanks for the review and the second reference!
I love those early French BCR bomber designs, especially the ones with the large glass aquariums in the bottom. The French were so thoughtful to take their pet goldfish to war with them to make certain they were looked after and well fed.
Rex, You are mad. What a massive comprehensive unbelievably fantastic piece of history. This has just become my most favorite of all time. Thank you and good work.
Excellent video, Rex. You hit the nail on every single problem the French had at the time.
The organizational part of the run up to war kept many outdated features still being prevalent on more modern designs, such as the 300-round drums for the MAC-1934 on fighters, no insulation from cold (or heat) for many of the aircraft systems, unreliable oxygen, radio and navigation sets and poor engine power output. Many aircraft lacked gunsights, propellers, radios and could not be shipped to the unit. Or were shipped in an incomplete state and then finished at unit level IF they had the spares.
There was an scathing article regarding the overall picture in one of the old Aerojournal magazines, some twenty years ago. The authors didn't hold back, mate. I'll tell you that.
Cheers.
When "In theory" is used so many times, it's never a good sign. 🤣
I think the most common statement regarding aircraft development I've heard on this channel is "[plane] was designed to operate with the [model] engine, but that was unavailable, so it first flew/deployed with [crappier] engine(s) instead."
Used a lot in the BEV industry, and how to get rid of the toxic batteries.
Note the cut-down vertical stabilizer and rudder assembly of the LeO 450. This was due to the arc of fire mandated by the rear-firing 20mm canon.
The arc of fire was inside the rudders on the LeO451. The choice of twin tails *was* to keep the rear firing arc clear.
In the case of the LeO451, there were some ... interesting aerodynamics in play, almost all of which were undesirable. Liore et Olivier were trying to keep the rudders in the airflow from the props to preserve some semblance of controllability at low speeds. Unfortunately, they failed, leading to a series of redesigns of the rudders that increased height and surface area, but never solved the problem of lateral instability. The 451 had an unfortunately high accident rate/operational attrition rate. There were also effects from the downwash from the wings, especially when exaggerated by the flaps during takeoff and landing. This directed much of the airflow away from the rudders.
That's not even getting into the big problems with the 451.
I probably should have mentioned that the arc of the un-enclosed hydraulic turret was limited by width of the fuselage of all of the bombers it was fitted in. The LeO 451 was particularly egregious because it was so narrow and so tall. It's not as obvious as the Handley-Page Hampden, but it was a bit of a flying suitcase.
Wider firing arcs for the Hispano-Suiza cannon also ran into the aerodynamic drag problems that caused the failure of the later RAF turret fighter projects. The barrel was so d$%& long that the drag pulled the tail sideways, which not only made the aircraft difficult to fly but made aiming a bit of a joke.
A small return on the time spent on the research for this series.
Thanks!
The looks of those bombers were probably considered just as potent at destroying the morale of the enemy as was the payload they were carrying.
Terror bombing, except the terror comes not from the bombs but from how terrible the bomber looks.
It was a defensive feature,pilots would avert their eyes and miss their shots.The problem was that Goebbels' face had immunized the germans.
The Potez 540 was way ahead of its time! How many other interwar bombers featured giant USB charging ports?? 🧐
*has PTSD flashbacks to trying to use any of the Potez usefully in Warthunder*
@@Shinzon23ooh, that bad?? I haven’t tried Warthunder yet, so far best I’ve tried is a flight simulator where I flew an SR-71 over Catalina Island, then overshot the runway and landed in the lobby of the Coronado Hotel 😂
@@patricia1333 Honestly, I'd take that excuse to visit the Coronado Hotel. It's splendid (and you can just walk into the lobby and wander the grounds.)
@@Shinzon23The Potez 631 with 6 machine guns is kinda solid tho
Hi Rex, I want to say you some very, very compliments for picking up this "european" subject. I my self was very interested in aviation since I was able to spend some money in English written documentaries about military aviation of pre war years and until end of WW2 . Then I was about 18 . Your deep diving research in French aviation "circumstances" ( which I apreciateed very, very much, so now I was comprehending what led to the poor apperance to counter Nazi und Italien threat). My most documentary consits of ten small booklets from William Green " War planes of the second world war" by MacDonalds in London from 1967.
There it was only mentioned of the detorieted state of the French government and the outcome. Now I can understand the different ways it come out.
So I want you to say again, I'm very thankful to fill my knowledge about it. Unfortunately I can´t support you by Patreon, because I've to struggle with my pension to make ends meet. Bye Gerd
An absolutely terrific, gripping and witty video with clear exposition of a fascinating period of aviation history.. I sense you finding intellectual space in the longer format. As a writer and researcher myself (though not video-maker nor connected to aircraft) I appreciate exactly what has gone into the production before you even begin to assemble the images and record the text. Your efforts are hugely appreciated. Keep 'em coming.
God, I second every single thing you wrote there.
Tack!
If you put a french bomber of the era on a yacht, and took off the wings, it would look like a marine nationale Pre dreadnought
The RAF and USAAC both had their fights between fighter and bomber policy and some poorly-conceived multi-place and multi-role aircraft. Fast forward a few years and the Luftwaffe was pressing even what was ostensibly a heavy bomber, the Do. 217 into service as a nightfighter. At least the UK gave up trying to turn the Wellington into one.
To expand, they tested a 40mm cannon turret on a Wellington. It didn't go well.
@HenryLafayette In terms of German definition (which is why I used the word 'ostensibly') it was a heavy, although it would have been a medium by RAF definition of the period.
@HenryLafayette 217 not 215. The 217 was for Bomber B and technically, in Luftwaffe terms, a heavy bomber. The 215 is a completely different aircraft.
The Allied heavy bomber doctrine was based on deterrence to prevent aggression by threatening a knock out blow on the means of production which turned out to be a wildly over optimistic concept. It wasn't a doctrine of aggression, though.
P.S. by RAF and USAAF standards the Do. 217 was a medium bomber but still a heavy in Luftwaffe terms. Again, this is why the word ostensibly in my original comment is key. It's also why I made the comparison to the Wellington, although the Do. 217's maximum bomb load was roughly twice that of the Wellington and equivalent to the P.13/36 RAF medium bomber specification that led to the Manchester. But still, in terms of RLM definitions, it was a heavy bomber.
@HenryLafayette What the hell is your problem?
Danke!
Sort of the same happened with the French interwar small arms procurement program I think.
Only after WW1 did the French finally develop a modern 7.5 mm rimless rifle / machinegun cartidge to replace their obsolete 8 mm rimmed Lebel cartidge, used in the ancient Lebel rifle and in the less obsolete Berthier rifle. The French had been experimenting with semi-automatic rifles even before WW1 (and did field one design during that war in small numbers). The problem with the 8 mm Lebel cartridge was that it wasn't really suited for (semi) automatic firearms. They developed a nice light machinegun for the new cartridge, the M24/29, and were trying to come up with a semi-automatic rifle. They wanted to get rid of the Lebels and Berthiers and while waiting for a semi-automatic, they developed and produced the MAS-36 bolt action rifle - I believe one of the last new bolt action rifles ever to be designed. Of course, the German war plans intervened with the French plans. Although a lot of effort and design work had been put into it, by 1940 there was still no "'French Garand''. The MAS-36 which was planned to equip 2nd line troops, had not even completely replaced the old WW1 rifles. A standard semi-automatic rifle for everyone would not appear until years after WW2.
The British followed this pattern too. The Farquhar Hill semi automatic rifle was developed during Ww1 but fell pray to post war cost cutting. This ultimately led to the British using the Enfield rifle into the 50's before adopting there license built FN model. Purely down to spending issues.
There was a 'French Garand' in 1940, the MAS-40, which was issued in small numbers prior to May. The MAS-49 (original) is pretty much the same rifle but with a detachable magazine. There was also a small production run of MAS-44, IIRC.
@@1bert719 in the late 1930s the issue wasn't spending so much as not embarking on a project that wouldn't complete before war began. The individual rifle was seen as a less important element as the section was built around the Bren. Serious consideration was given to moving all machine guns to 7.92mm prior to WW2 but it was seen as too complex as a section would then have a mix of types as converting several million SMLEs as well as No. 4s wasn't really viable. And that was more about having a single calibre so riflemen could give up ammunition for the Bren.
The MAS-36 was designed to have maximum parts and training compatibility with the MAS-40 and to allow replacement of Berthiers (although there were still a few Lebels about).
@@wbertie2604 Your correct in regards to tactical doctrine of the 30's. (My reference) The Farquhar Hill rifle was completed in 1918 and used in trials prior to the armistice, after this there was no real enthusiasm to adopt an expensive unit they hoped they would never need and had a surplus of other types. Check it out as it's quite an interesting piece of hardware.
Nice way to enjoy a relaxing Sunday morning. Cup of coffee, some Factorio, and Rex's Hangar playing
It really took madness to continually merge an airplane with living room.
Each of these breakdowns I watch I realise how much communication is a limiting factor in development in general. Why do they need the plane, what does it need to do, how many bolts, sticks and rolls of tape they have to make it. It's like watching a multitude of instances of operation wikinger take place on a smaller scale. But it also shows how fast people are learning after each omega cock-up so that's kinda neat to see also! To me, this is a large part of the fun in learning about airplane development, so I appreciate you including this angle on occasion, Rex!
It's crazy how they were treating heavy bombers the way we are now treating atomic boombooms.
"If we have enough of them, nobody would be foolish enough to start a war."
I noticed that too. I already knew for years that they treated bombers as such back then, but never connected the dots to their postwar equivalent.
Yep -though hopefully we never have a war that disproved atomic deterrence the way strategic bombing deterrence was repeatedly disproved.
The tonnage of bombs that interwar theorists were suggesting would result in utter capitulation was laughably low when compared to the daily tonnages actually dropped on London, Germany, and Japan cities. One 1928 estimate was that just 300 tons of bombs dropped on major cities would end a war; yet even a blitz raid (far smaller than the later Allied bombing raids) might drop over six times that in a single night.
Civilian moral and political will were just far more resilient that strategic bombing theorists assumed. And even during the war proponents kept saying that if just a bit more was dropped that would win the war; and kept being wrong.
Dr. Gatling proved his theory that "if you make a terrible weapon, people will have to stop warring", didn't he?
A lot of British interwar civil and military planning was done on the assumption that Luftwaffe bombers would inflict something like 700k casualties in the first week of attacks on London
Seriously, great work! Many thanks.
While the first part was like a series of growing pains and had its cringe-inducing decisions on the part of the French, this second part was an absolute descent into madness.
And that final chapter, with the terrifyingly inevitable last-gasp race to the line, was just tragic. I kept hoping, against all known facts of the historical outcome, that the French Government and aeronautical industry was going to get its act together in time... but no, not quite!
My heart was actually in my mouth as I saw genuinely good aircraft appearing - and then not making up squadrons before time ran out.
Again, amazing work and I can't wait to see some of those late-30s French light & medium bombers get their own videos.
And I'd be totally happy if they were deep dives too - never worry about your videos running long on our behalf - I think we all love it.
-
Also, RIP Rex's voice box.
For me it's still hard to believe that Marcel Bloch who designed the Bloch abominations in the 1930s is also Marcel Dassault who led the development of the Mirages as well as French and Israeli missiles.
Which Type of Bomber flew Antoine de Saint Exupery in His novel "flight to Arras" ? IT was a reconnaissance Mission, night against the progressing Wehrmacht.
@@martinschneider7130 Bloch MB.174 (online sources usually say 170, Dassault Aviation site says 174 - an early production version of 170).
I am startled how the Amiots, Blochs and LeO's after years of building aeronautical monstrosities, suddenly got their act together to create not only fast but also very goodlooking airplanes.
Thanks for covering the Interwar French bombers. I’ve always loved them for their jankyness and just over all ugliness. It’s fantastic you have similar love of these fantastic and terrible aircraft
You missed the best feature of the Amiot 143: the copilot was seated **below** the pilot.
Yes, right in the middle of the gondola.
Rex, you have done a terrific job with the making of both part 1 and 2. Thank you.
Most were ugly enough to make a freight train back up and take a different track... but they make such interesting and impressive models. I believe that Heller released many kits of these flying greenhouses (and many of the later, saner-looking types) in 1/72 scale at one point.
At around 1:19:06 you use a photo of a US-built Martin Model 167F (in which the F stands for 'French') instead of the MB.131. I believe you used the same photo earlier in the video. It's quite distinctive due to the different landing gear and the engines. France ordered around 200 of these, with instrumentation in metric. In French service, they were designated Glenn Martin 167 A-3.
The RAF used the Model 167 as well and called it the Maryland. Some aircraft from the order for the French Air Force were converted to imperial instrumentation and delivered to Britain after the fall of France. They also differed in other minor details and defensive armament (i.e. twin drum fed .303cal Vickers GO guns in the ventral and dorsal positions).
The other time is 30:22. Maryland also used by SAAF who used a 4-man crew. Wiki says 3-man crew so probably RAF.
Fascinating and complex history. Thanks for tackling the subject. I have to say I like the look of these French aircraft, impractical as they may have been. Something steam punkish maybe. Carry on with the good work.
Nothing like a new upload to delay going to bed. Oh well it looks like my new bedtime is 1:30 am.
Yes I know I can watch it later after i have woken up, but having sleep issues at the moment so this is a good distraction.
"The French copy no one, and no one copies the French."
Thank you, I appreciate the effort you've put into unravelling this story.
These are spectacular in depth videos, awesome job!
Those two videos were simply delicious. Such a great job to listen and listen again. Wonderful!
Man I love your videos. You present the content in such an engaging way, time literally flies. Short or long, your videos are top quality (and rather addicting) !
Congratulations ! The research for and correlation of information on this topic must have been EPIC ! Although I'm not an aircraft nerd, I thoroughly enjoyed both videos on this topic, and look forward to whatever comes next ! I'm glad I'm subscribed to your channel, and regret I'm financially unable to become a Patron. (O.A.P.!) Thanks !
What a fantastic look into a very little discussed bit of aviation history. Just a grand example of the wrong people making decisions on things they did not truly understand.
You did much more than a good job! As my father was French I can only thank you for your excellent research and the coverage of this difficult and complicated subject. Thanks again
This was quite the worthy effort. As a history buff, it filled in the gaps and increased my understanding of the French war effort at the start of WWII. I didn't know if I was going to make it through the first hour, but you kept it entertaining and the time flew by. 👍
You really have been busy.
Thanks bro.👍👍👍👍👍
Well done, mate! A bit of a slog for ya but I appreciate your attention to detail. I've been into aircraft since I was 4 years old (58 now) but I never really followed French, let alone early French aircraft development. So this was a rare treat. Thank you!
You have delivered one the best documentaries on UA-cam by far ...... Thank you
This was a huge undertaking! Congratulations and thank you.
This is an Epic video series, that you for doing this.
Thank you very much for both parts. I appreciate the research and your gift to impart your knowledge!
Another very excellent video! Thi series has been joyful to watch, and was full of things I had never known before
Man, you're really getting the hang of these short-format videos :D
Brilliant video series. Top notch. I can't wait for more like this.
Very informative and interesting narration. Really is very good.
The French predilection for.. questionable design aesthetics is not confined to the air. I refer you to Drachenifel’s superb presentation on UA-cam ‘When Hotels Go To Sea’ which pertains to the odd French decisions relating to their navy prior to the Great War.
Inspired by Crimson Assurance?
In France’s defense, there’s nothing wrong with their current weapons.
@@feastguy101 Accidents will happen
1:05. It wasn't only the airforce that suffered multiple small batches instead of a large order. Just look at tank (char) production. France entered the war with 2 AMC, 2 AMR, 2 FCM, 3 Hotchkiss, a half dozen Renault, and a Somua tank model. And only two of these were really modern designs, the Somua S35 and the Renault B1. The few times that they could amass the S35s and B1s against the German invasion they were very successful, but lots of little tanks spread around to every infantry division doomed the effectiveness of their armor.
The B1 was very much not a modern design - it was a committee cut and shut of mid 20s designs with a turret shoved on top.Some of the light tanks were very much more modern.
The other medium, the D2 wasn't very modern.
The S35 wasn't too bad. There were a couple of excellent armoured cars.
In terms of doctrine, the DLRs concentrated tanks and were more or less like Panzer divisions. The light tanks allocated out in infantry divisions were to make the best of personnel numbers and are a bit like two person exoskeletons in concept. The concept was flawed, though. Making tanks into behemoths with huge guns didn't work either and was another response to manpower issues.
Superb analysis. Astonishingly good. Bravo.
Thank you for an excellent video!!!
What strikes me the most,by a lot of historic videos i've seen,is the in -ability of motor producing industry in Europe to supply a fitting engines to any airplane in due time!!!
Having been in the engine business for more than 40 years, I can assure you that engines take longer to develop than any other part of an aircraft (or any other vehicle). We in the business mostly regard the vehicles as mobile test platforms for our creations. On the other side of the coin, vehicle designers want propulsion systems that cost nothing, weigh nothing, don't occupy any space, or burn any fuel.
Fascinating and very well presented - as usual
Bravo! Thank you Rex :)
This was great.
Rex - the Drachinifel of the skies!
I really enjoyed this French interwar documents. My only problem is, that I have an urge to identify every plane in every photo, so when you use some illustration photo from a factory I am pausing the video and searching in all my interwar plane monographies in hopeless effort to find it :)
Excellent review. Many thanks
Appreciate your hard work. I'm picky about subscribing to channels and after you did work with Drach I figured you were a good bet. Paid off.Thanks again .
1:19:08 shows, I believe, a Martin Maryland rather than a Bloch MB131.
Great job. Enjoyed both videos
The French love making weird looking vehicles
True. The Leclerc is one of the strangest looking tanks in service today.
Look up any French pre-dreadnaught.
@@LostShipMate when hotels go to war 😂
citroen cars
What an excellent video, thank you for this.
This might be your most poetic essay yet. Kudos
Awesome I was waiting for this
During WW1 French industry was the locomotive which carried Allies to Victory, and their Army was the spine. US forces came late, and were largely equipped with French weapons. Too much blood spilled, France fully recuperated from Great War only in 1950s. They bled themselves white 1914-1918. In addition the French domestic politics which were, and are near fist fighting.
This commentary is too good and too based on facts...the rest of the people commenting prefers stereotypes like the ''hotels go to war'' of Drachnifels', the ''French copy no one, no one copy the French'' ad nauseum...either way, congrats, someone is knowing what he is talking about.
@@Balrog2005 Thanks. Great War is left behind shadow of WW2, and so is French crucial contribution to victory. In 1914-15 war in land was in practice France vs Germany. Germany had well over 50% larger population than France, and highly competent army and industry. Brits had way little number of troops on land war, and every time Russians tried anything, they were outmanouvred by Germans (plus Austro-Hungary shared front there with Germans). France managed to raise troops, fight as only major player in west for years, supply its own troops and in large part later arm Americans with battlelines going smack middle of most industrialized part of France. The price of those 4 years cant be measured. Whole generation of men had died or wounded, and most of NE France was in ruins. France did benefit of baby boom only after WW2.
Thank you for the long format. I really appreciate the amount of detail you put into all of these videos.
Amazing work. Just outstanding.
Good documentary, well done
Wonderful stuff. Excellent presenataion.
I feel like the countries that were banned from/couldnt afford to develop a significant mechanised combat arm in the 20s in the aftermath of ww1 dodged a bullet in spending valouable resources, and perhaps more importantly tieing their production base and doctrine to equipment that would swiftly become outdated in the climate of extremely rapid military development in the era. The french suffered seriously from this in numerous areas, airpower included.
Yes, great comment. They were able, at least partly, to sit on the sidelines and avoid costly mistakes. Then, when the direction of travel became more obvious and with less cumbersome political systems, make accurate choices.
Well done, excellent content!
Great work dude
The French design very French designs.....”Look upon my works”
Great job! Liking the historic context and generalized commentaries on such a complex subject. Better than the old joke “French rifle for sale; only dropped once” 😂
Love the phrase "Big, Curvaceous But"
I picked the exact wrong moment to be drinking coffee when that line was delivered
Excellent narrative. Not only explaining France’s main airforce issues as 1940 arrived, but also pointing out its contribution to the overall military failures in Poland & The Rhineland, the absence of a force that could have been an effective deterrent. This military weakness in build strategy (aided by periods of disarmament & economic depression) is the other component (alongside the philosophical) contributing to the disjointed Entente appeasement policy of the time. Its important not to miss this message from history under the many political excuses of this period 😼
I could listen to Rex talk about France all day.
The French bombers remind me of a period of French cruisers that resembled floating hotels more than warships. Drachinefel did a video on them a while back
I would love to see a dedicated video on the history of the Potez 630, such a beautiful aircraft.
Thanks Rex
Excellent job. Thank you.
Thanks for all the research you have done on this subject, great channel! To sum up, the French bombers didn't work out well in combat conditions. BTW, the French had political leaders of different sides throughout the 30s, like a liberal was in power for a few months, the government collapsed and then a more center government would take charge for the next few months, rinse and repeat. Hard to get a cohesive military under that political change (kind of like now in places).
ok, I like the Breguet 460. It looks like something out of an Art Deco comic book or Sky Captain and I love it.
Awesome video thank you 👍
Great work!
For some reason I’m amazed and impressed by French failure in the inner war period. Excellent series.
I love how French interwar bombers have so many parallels with the French interwar navy, even down to looking like flying/floating hotels.
Thanks for another aeronautical gem Rex. Many of the twin engine BCRs and bombers discussed featured "handed" propellers, for example at 47:21 the Potez 540's port (#1) prop rotates anti-clockwise when viewed from ahead and the starboard (#2) prop rotates clockwise. I assume this was to avoid having a "critical" engine in the event of a single-engine failure. Any thoughts anyone?
Best intro ever, btw. No funny business, just gets on with it.
Loved this, thanks very much.
Sorry to be an anorak but I believe the aircraft shown at 1:19:08 with the guys in the berets might actually be a Martin Maryland
I don't know if anyone else was reduced to this reaction to this video, but I spent practically the whole running time sadly shaking my head at the complete fiasco that it described!