New Video, I answer questions on the Range Debate

Thanks for taking the time to respond to some of our comments. My questions during the debate may sound technical, but I was trying to understand how deep the coverup went. As the debate wore on I began to think that it was more than just drop tanks… leak proof ratings, racks, range based on internal fuel and internal tanks that limit the airplane’s ability to perform combat maneuvers seem like more evidence to your point, evidence in favor of a coverup.

I loved the debate. I had an email to vote for the winner. In my opinion the winner was the facts. Both of you are well reasoned and incisive debaters. I think the difference is a matter of opinion. Bill has a greater faith in the ability of senior leaders to admit fallibility in the face of pretty overwhelming evidence. I worked Aerospace for over 40 years and consequently dealt with many retired senior who became executives in the private sector (and many who were still in uniform on the customer side). We actually pay executives to pick a direction with minimal information and stay the course to fruition. Some of these folks cannot be swayed by new information and sometimes disaster results. I tend to agree with your opinion about the bomber mafia impacting technical decisions in a tragic way. I tend to believe your interpretation based on my experience with not so visionary executives. The facts presented were never in doubt for me..

Greg, just signed up and upgraded to Captain 😉, would you be open to do a deep dive into the history and operations of the BF-110 and it's variants?

The AAF was very negative on single engine bombers including dive bombers and bought very few. (See the A-31 or A-36) What aircraft were built went mostly to allied countries. When the AAF needed those missions flown the best they had was the P-47. The P-51 was an excellent escort and the P-47 was better suited for either ground attack or very high altitude missions. It seems like things never change and when the A-10 was being procured the AF tried to reject it saying that fighters could do the mission better.

Jack, yes the P-47 is a good ground attack airplane. That doesn't mean it can't do escorting, I might be missing your point.

Could it be that as they apportioned the tactical air force out to support the various priority missions that the P-47 was seen as the better ground attack platform... more firepower, more durable, air cooled engine, etc?

Yes, they thought the B-17 and B-24s with their better firepower, speed and altitude, along with larger formations would make the difference.

Really enjoyed this debate Greg, Stanley Baldwins ' the bomber will always get through' doctrine was clearly alive and well with the so called bomber mafia. More troubling was the writing was on the wall for if anyone who cared to read it. The German experience and the British experience, all failed without escort both eventually both adopting night raids to reduce losses. My question is do you think there was good reason for the bomber mafia to believe that there experience might be different? The B-17 compared to both German and British heavy's was a far more potent beast, it flew higher, was faster at altitude and was significantly better armed. Could this have been a factor in reinforcing there belief before reality set in? I would add it it wouldn't be the last time lessons had to be learnt the hard way at great cost. Admiral Kings reluctance to accept the British offer of ships to escort convoys across the Atlantic was another the springs to mind.

Thanks Greg. It was very entertaining discussion. Looking forward to more. Learned quite a bit.