The Development of French Interwar Bombers Pt 2 - From Mediocrity To Insanity
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
- Today we continue to explore the development of French bombing aircraft in the interwar period.
Want to support the channel? Become a patreon member here - / rexshangar
Want to join the community? Visit our Discord - / discord
Recommended reading:
French Bombers of WWII by Jose Fernandez - amzn.to/3RNiAwl
The Rise and Fall of the French Air Force by Greg Baughen - amzn.to/3toeWQh
French Aircraft of the First World War by James Davilla and Arthur Soltan - amzn.to/482YUdL
French Aircraft From 1939 to 1942 Vol 1 & 2 by Dominique Breffort & Andre Jouinau - amzn.to/3Ty9QM8 & amzn.to/3Twva4l
Les Avions Potez by Jean Louis Coroller and Michel Ledet - amzn.to/3v80mNp
Les Avions Breguet Vol.1 and Vol.2 by Henri Lacaze- amzn.to/4778CKS
Les Avions Farman by Jean Liron - www.amazon.fr/Avions-Farman-L...
Les Avions Bernard by Jean Liron - amzn.to/48q7mU0
The Command of the Air by Giulio Douhet - amzn.to/472zfjX
Guerra agli inermi ed Aviazione d'assalto (War on the defenseless and assault aviation) by Amedeo Mecozzi - www.amazon.it/Guerra-agli-ine...
Published Journal Articles
The Strategic Dream: French Air Doctrine in the Inter-War Period, 1919-39 by Robert J. Young (www.jstor.org/stable/260291 )
Douhet's Antagonist: Amedeo Mecozzi (www.jstor.org/stable/26276033...)
Useful Websites
hud607.fire.prohosting.com/unc... (an excellent explaination for the nationalisation of the French aircraft industry)
www.asisbiz.com/Battles/BOF-a... (a good at-a-glance coverage of the battle of France)
0:00 Intro
1:43 Path to an independent Air Force
13:47 The BCR Concept Renewed
22:25 The BCR Concept Abandoned
31:20 Amiot 144
32:29 Farman F.420
34:47 Bloch MB.130
38:26 Breguet 460
42:05 Potez 540
47:56 France Struggles To Make New Bombers
58:09 Nationalising The French Aircraft Industry
01:11:07 The Rush To Re-Arm
01:13:43 Amiot 354
01:17:56 Bloch MB.131
01:19:51 Bloch MB.170
1:22:20 Liore et Olivier LeO 451
1:27:54 Chaos and Defeat - Наука та технологія
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
It really took madness to continually merge an airplane with living room.
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.
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!
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
You missed the best feature of the Amiot 143: the copilot was seated **below** the pilot.
Yes, right in the middle of the gondola.
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.
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.
Nice way to enjoy a relaxing Sunday morning. Cup of coffee, some Factorio, and Rex's Hangar playing
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Rex, you have done a terrific job with the making of both part 1 and 2. Thank you.
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. 👍
France: "It's over, the BCR concept was too crazy to ever work."
USSR: "Here's the Tupolev TB3, 4 our heavy long-range bomber that's also a troop transport and can deploy paratroopers."
Reporter: "But can it fight planes or do ground support?"
USSR: "It can act as a mothership, carrying a full wing of fighters or ground-attack planes."
The lesson here is, if you want crazy but effective, call the soviets.
EDIT: One other interesting thing is that, while both the air force and the army's armored units were suffering all these problems, the one branch of the French military that was experiencing a golden age of modernization was the navy. And that's ironic because, up until the Great War the navy was the main source of batshit insanity and chaos. There are entire classes of capital ships that the french built that had little in common between each individual ship. I guess in the 1920s and 30s the navy finally got its act together, but their way of thinking infected the other branches.
Many interwar RAF designs were supposed to be able to carry paratroopers or troops and the Stirling and Albermarle did so, although how they got them into the latter boggles the mind.
"And that's ironic because"
The fact of how utterly and completely useless that navy ended up being in WWII makes it even more ironic.
"The lesson here is, if you want crazy but effective, call the soviets."
*lol*
They ended up doing a LOT of weird experimenting... Though i'm not so sure about how effective most of the weirder stuff really was.
While they did manage to surprisingly make the "bomber carries fighters" concept actually work, i'm not sure anyone would truly call it effective.
@@DIREWOLFx75 They used it on combat missions, it destroyed targets, and made it home after. I'd call that effective. And fucking crazy.
@@DIREWOLFx75 They did 30 combat sorties before they were recalled due to the Tupolev TB3 being considered too vulnerable with enemy air superiority and they only made 5 of then.the Zveno were used as dive bombers and did well enough that Admiral Kuznetsov asked Stalin for more of then (being rejected because the Soviet Air Force was kinda needing help) ... also even as if they were primary used as dive bombers they managed to shoot down 2 Me 109.
Its weird but the damn crazy thing actually worked very well.
@@drakronIt only worked well because the Luftwaffe wasn't really there where the Zveno's were.😅 I suspect that the air to air succes of the Zveno's I-16s stemmed from the fact that they only had experienced I-16 pilots fly in the Zveno, but that's just speculation.
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) !
Does the idea of a bomber/fighter/recon aircraft remind anyone of the Mosquito?
Or any single seat fighters capable of carrying a bomb or carrying a camera.
@@neiloflongbeck5705America moment😅
Thank you, I appreciate the effort you've put into unravelling this story.
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.
Those two videos were simply delicious. Such a great job to listen and listen again. Wonderful!
The French design very French designs.....”Look upon my works”
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 !
These are spectacular in depth videos, awesome job!
Thank you very much for both parts. I appreciate the research and your gift to impart your knowledge!
You have delivered one the best documentaries on UA-cam by far ...... Thank you
Really well done! And you may have peaked with your point about the “curvaceous but” of the French basically wanting a De Havilland Mosquito 12 years early.
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.
Another very excellent video! Thi series has been joyful to watch, and was full of things I had never known before
Brilliant video series. Top notch. I can't wait for more like this.
This was a huge undertaking! Congratulations and thank you.
Superb analysis. Astonishingly good. Bravo.
You really have been busy.
Thanks bro.👍👍👍👍👍
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.
This is an Epic video series, that you for doing this.
Very informative and interesting narration. Really is very good.
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
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!
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
Man, you're really getting the hang of these short-format videos :D
Fascinating and very well presented - as usual
Great job. Enjoyed both videos
Wonderful stuff. Excellent presenataion.
Bravo! Thank you Rex :)
This was great.
Amazing work. Just outstanding.
Well done, excellent content!
Awesome I was waiting for this
Great work!
Fascinating and well presented 👍
What an excellent video, thank you for this.
Great work dude
I could listen to Rex talk about France all day.
Excellent job. Thank you.
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 .
A small return on the time spent on the research for this series.
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.
This might be your most poetic essay yet. Kudos
Awesome video thank you 👍
Thank you for the long format. I really appreciate the amount of detail you put into all of these videos.
Thanks Rex
OK, Potez 540 went into service in 1934. The same year Britain got Handley Page Heyford. Now let that sink in...
I would love to see a dedicated video on the history of the Potez 630, such a beautiful aircraft.
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).
1:19:08 shows, I believe, a Martin Maryland rather than a Bloch MB131.
Tack!
Thanks!
Great video
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
Une Vidéo des plus instructive et intéressante pour un sujet pas assez étudié et qui explique bien l'une des raisons de l’effondrement de l'armée française en 1940. Thx for covering this subject between you and Drachinifel you've make me discover from an outside point of view why my country lost thebattle in 1940. Thx it was so interesting.
The Mistral Major. Amazing engine really. It was built is so many variations. Alvis Pelides (UK), Isotta Fraschini K.14 (Italy), IAM K14 (Yugoslavia), IAR K14 (Romania), Piaggio P.XI and PXIX (Italy) , Tumansky M-85 (Russia), Walther Mistral (Germany) and NAM K14 (Vietnam). Just amazing. So, the engine must have been perfectly okay.
Excellent!
I wonder which period of aircraft development was more insane overall... The pre-war years or the interwar years?
There is a lot of general insanity in pre-war development. People just threw everything at the wall to see what stuck. Leading to some wild stuff. While in the interwar years it seems that the insanity is more focused in developing different specific things (i.e. turret fighters, dive bombers). Leading to lots of facepalms and wtfs.
Excellent piece of work - this vid not so much French interwar bombers. Kept my attention to the end.
Did you mention the Bloch 162 in here as well, or did I just miss it? Good videos.
Excellent pair of videos. Very informative. I was wondering, if you can actually find the rime and your voice can last, if you might do similar videos about other airforces and their bombers during the interwar years? With my limited reading on the interwar luftwaffe, it appears the Germans flirted with strategic bombing and a multirole, do everything "Kampfzerstörer" as well.
Thank you well done