Consequences of shooting a WWII Bomber’s G-1 Oxygen Cylinder. Explosion Vulnerability footage.

[@jamiebusch9406]

Relentless, logical, factual, dispassionate.... this channel is a masters class in how to get to the truth... Thanks again for the excellence you pursue and achieve.

[@kikrotin]

The Bf 109 MG 17 machine guns were often fed with a mix of Phosphor "B" round ammo and Armor Piercing Tracer "SmK L'spur, because the germans knew the caliber was too small to inflict any serious damage, and the potential of an incendiary round was quite efficient against critical and flammable components.

[@Xeno1001]

It’s interesting in terms of the armament of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 because by the summer of 1943, the G-6 variant was becoming the standard 109 with the more powerful MG 131 13mm machine guns. For all of 1942 and early 1943, the 109s that would be encountered would most likely be the G-2 and G-4 which do have the 7.92 machine guns. However, if you look at the 109s in Masters of the Air, you can see the 109s have gun bulges or “blisters” in front of the cockpit. That means it’s a G-6 and thus has 13mm machine guns. Thought I would let that be known.

[@SharkHustler]

'Typical', and not in any way surprised at this oversight. Speaking from a self-professed [amateur] Me 109 'expert' (although I have yet to see the Series myself [still debating, mind you]), from what I've heretofore witnessed (among other online [MotA] clips/commentary), I not only find it appalling the amount of [blatant] technical/historical [CGI] errors 'edited' into the scenes, but perhaps more so, in many ways, it certainly does not appear that 'they' (Apple/Spielberg, et al.) got this Series 'right' in the first place (in a comparison to their two previous [well-orchestrated] works), which is in fact a pretty sad affair, considering the millions (let alone the [long-awaited] time and resources) they poured (or rather, _wasted)_ into this 'arcade-game'-like 'production'.

[@Xeno1001]

@@SharkHustler the show is first and foremost entertainment, and in that part, I say it succeeds. No matter what historical film or show is made, there will always be inaccuracies, you just can’t avoid it. Yes Masters of the Air has some problems, but overall it actually did pretty well when compared to other works. Enjoy the show, if not, that’s ok.

[@kirotheavenger60]

​@@SharkHustlerI think, ultimately, what they ran into with Masters of the Air is that the air was less dramatic for the film screen and developments were greater and more visually obvious. The former is a problem because, in the air, a lot of the fear comes from the flak, thousands of feet below and invisible to our camera. Or roving fighters, which pass very quickly (or are engaged out of sight by fighters). It's not like a ground war where there's gunfire everywhere, and tactical maneuvres and all this. The latter is a problem because they only have so much budget. They can only produce so many 3D models, only produce or rent so many replicas. This makes it difficult to accurately portray the versions and outfits of aircraft at each stage, when each mission they portray would expect slightly different variations of each aircraft.

[@matthewcaughey8898]

The canoes as 109 pilots called them were usually fitted for intercept missions. They basically added a pair of 20mm cannons to the 109 quickly and easily. They were an optional add on from the BF-109F onward. The F models redesigned wing eliminated the space where the BF-109E had a pair of 20mm cannons with about 60 rounds each in a drum magazine. The Slats in the F or Fredrich model eliminated the space. The designers fitted the MG-FF 20mm Motorkannon as a compromise. All 109s after the E model could carry the extra guns. Good catch on the cowling bulges and an excellent point about the extra room needed to mount the 13mm guns bigger dimensions. The G model or Gustav variants biggest claim to fame was the mounting of the 30mm Rhinemetal Borsig cannon in the through engine mounting. You saw mostly G models by 1943 cause Germany had suspended all bomber production to concentrate on fighters. You also had BF-110s and whatever else the Luftwaffe could get ahold of going up to combat the B-17s but yeah the G model 109 was the most numerous. The final BF-109 or ME-109 ( the BF or ME designator is interchangeable btw and just denotes which manufacturer built that particular aircraft) was the K or Kurtfaust. K model 109s didn’t really get to do much and the platform was showing its age vs newer fighters from the allies entering service. ( the 109 was originally a 1934 racing aircraft converted into a fighter. By 1944 it was 10 years old while they were able to increase the power and other equipment and weapons, they couldn’t gloss over the age and range limitations of the aircraft )

[@SharkHustler]

@@kirotheavenger60 Only an 'air of ignorance' out the producers' arses is what I smell here ... For a 'budget' of some $500 million, you'd think 'they' could just about get anything and everything right, wouldn't you think?

[@Bandog23]

That scene from masters of the sky was brutal

[@gastonbell108]

In the early war with the lack of chin and dorsal turrets (and/or lack of experienced personnel to man them) the risk from a frontal attack was very real, and the pilot throwing a corkscrew to disrupt the gun run was their only hope. If the German pilot was brave enough and the Allied bomber pilot was complacent enough, it remained a viable tactic until war's end. If the chin and dorsal turrets were present and attentively manned and the pilot was visually tracking and prepared for evasive action, the zealous German pilot ended up on a suicide run which ended before he could even fire a shot. Which is why you see MUCH less "face shotting" attempts from midwar onward.

[@Bandog23]

@@gastonbell108 Yeah they fixed the frontal issue later when they added the 50 turret. The face shot became harder. Thanks for the reply.

[@WilliamHarbert69]

Another great presentation. As usual reality is much more fascinating than comic book quality fiction. The clips looking around the B29 were fantastic. Thank you for including these.

[@TonboIV]

There is probably enough flammable material inside a B-17 cabin to produce a large fireball if the partial pressure of oxygen is high enough, but only a few seconds wouldn't be nearly enough time for a few bullet holes to leak anything like enough oxygen to significantly affect such a large volume. The B-17 also has two wide open waist gunner ports with hundreds of knots of airflow outside, so there's a _lot_ of ventilation. They also seemed to be at high altitude, so the partial pressure of oxygen wouldn't be all that high even at 100% oxygen by volume.

[@parviz3998]

There wouldn't be a fireball at all, everything flammable is in a solid state and a sudden release of oxygen wouldn't do anything. You're not suddenly getting a huge amount of flammable gas that'll readily mix with the oxygen and create a fireball. The pressure at that altitude is low enough that any release of oxygen wouldn't even be capable of producing an environment that approaches the relative pressure at sea level. That rapidly expanding gas would also cool the surrounding environment, there isn't some massive release of energy that would ignite surrounding materials and the low ambient pressure would mean combustion gasses rapidly expand significantly reducing the relative temperature and the potential for ignition of the surrounding materials, even for a brief moment. On top of an atmosphere which will support rapid combust you need an ignition source with sufficient energy to set everything on fire instantaneously. An ignition source like that doesn't exist, you'd need serious injection of energy in the form of thermal radiation to make all the nearby materials hot enough to combust at the exact time the oxygen floods the environment.

[@keithmoore5306]

the only way to get a fireball like that is an vapor cloud so it'd have to be either fuel vapor or hydraulic fluid spraying in a fine mist for a fireball!!

[@liamferreira8912]

Playing devils advocate here. Maybe wiring or electrical equipment could have been hit by the machine gun fire? Any circuits that are severed, but are still close enough to arc current between themselves or another conductive material (metal objects inside the bomber) can cause an open spark which ignites the gas, or combustible materials in the cabin? But as mentioned partial pressure of oxygen at this altitude will be extremely low and whether a dense enough cloud of oxygen can form to catch alight is questionable. Definitely is a scene more for shock value but does deliver on that👍

[@keithmoore5306]

@@liamferreira8912 not likely internal wiring carried at most 48 volts it wouldn't be enough! now 20mm explosive cannon shells are another subject!!

[@wirelessone2986]

Liquid Oxygen was developed in 1877,the Germans used it in WW2.If it was used on board US aircraft in WW2 it is more volatile than gasoline.The question for you truth seekers is it LOX on the B17/24/29??

[@retorenfer8702]

Your channel is absolutely outstanding! Very well done!

[@GordonFalt]

I love this channel

[@Knuck_Knucks]

This video was Breath taking . Thank you ! 🐿

[@localbod]

Another excellent and informative presentation delivering facts instead Hollywood myths.

[@beverlychmelik5504]

Another sourse of fuel for the fire can be hydro fluid vaporising. Fun fact. the KC-135 still uses those LP O2 cylinders. We has both types on the aircraft, banded and unbanded, 14 total. They origionally had only 7 as it was the backup O2 system for when the LOX bottle was empty. In the late 90's they removed the LOX bottle and made the cylinders primary with the addional cylinders to save maintance and parts money.

[@BobDuffy-kf2pf]

The USAAF went to non-flammable hydraulic fluid before we entered the war. The RAF had issues with alcohol based flammbale fluid and they- and we-changed. This change over did cause issues with seals in Martin B-26 bombers adding to the problems that plane had.

[@sublimeguy]

I just wanted to say thank you for specifying how oxygen is not flammable so many people say that oxygen is flammable it is not flammable I use as a welder / iron worker all day long around massive temperatures it is an accelerant and that's what we use it for.

[@Dilley_G45]

Not an accelerant....an oxidizer. Enabling combustion...not accelerating it

[@randomnickify]

"Oxygen burns " is common Hollywood trope used in many movies.

[@scrubsrc4084]

But it does help everything else burn

[@randomnickify]

@@scrubsrc4084 Yes, but single match will not make oxygen tank explode - like in Deadpool. If anything it will put it out because rapidly expanding gas is cold :)

[@markmaki4460]

@@scrubsrc4084 Indeed, many things that will not typically burn in a regular 20-22% O2 environment will burn in a 100% O2 environment. And things that will burn slowly in a regular O2 environment will burn so quickly they will often appear to deflagrate. I will point the reader to the Apollo 1 disaster.

[@scrubsrc4084]

@@randomnickify the temperature is irrelevant.

[@allangibson8494]

There are videos on KZbin showing exactly what happens - the tanks walls ignite (briefly). A 1/2” hole in a steel cylinder becomes a 3” hole as the tank empties.

[@erickent3557]

Great video, and Great Channel

[@gastonbell108]

"The British used the high-pressure system" Yet another reason why you were 2.5x more likely to survive being downed in a B17 vs. a Lancaster.

[@billyponsonby]

Another reason not to waste my time on Masters of the air. Why did they employ expert advice and then ignore it?

[@mattcavanaugh6082]

The first six episodes are quite good, and the historical accuracy is for the most part acceptable. Just stop watching after those first six.

[@Chris-ut6eq]

Were they actually experts? Was given advice ignored? no clue.... I stopped believing in expert advice once I saw enough History channel "Alien Experts" or "UFO Experts" commenting on the channel. Note: Was traveling for business when stuck in a hotel, and only watched for entertainment as there is little to no history on that channel, very sad.......

[@gotanon9659]

Except it has happened multiple times before but sure

[@miket2120]

Accuracy is almost always sacrificed to a degree for the emotion of the story. If they stuck to pure accuracy, only a few viewers would appreciate it while most viewers may just go "meh" and not get emotionally involved with the story and thus lose interest.

[@TannuWannu]

focus on reality.

[@kurtbilinski1723]

The "engulfing fire" is much more believable when considering what happened on the launch pad to the Apollo 1 crew who had a slight electrical short. The cabin was already filled with oxygen, and the spark initiated an extremely fast and intense fire to consume anything that could burn, in mere seconds.

[@Snargfargle]

The atmosphere in the Apollo 1 was 100% oxygen though in a sealed capsule. A bullet through one or two low-pressure oxygen tanks of a B-24 bomber wouldn't increase the interior O2 content of the non-pressurized plane much at all, even in the immediate vicinity of the tank. Those tanks held only 29 cubic feet of oxygen each.

[@keithmoore5306]

Apollo was a sealed cabin a bomber is not!! at best those bottles dumping their oxygen would add maybe 0.01% to the mix in the air onboard!

[@Suranfox]

@@Snargfargle Oh it will. A high pressure stream of pure oxygen will mechanically move other gasses out of the way. Thus allowing anything from an oil film coating to paint and Aluminium to ignite and burn. I concur with the questionable but not unplausable fire.

[@Dan-yk6sy]

​​@@Suranfox29 cubic feet of O2 per tank, about a cubic yard. Might feed a close by fire while leaking but I don't think it would be as dramatic as the TV show. One cubic yard of O2 isn't going to displace that much atmosphere in the cabin.

[@Snargfargle]

@@Suranfox THE USAAF went to low-pressure (400 psi) tanks before the incident depicted in the video. A relatively slow release of 29 cubic feet of oxygen would not cause everything in the vicinity to ignite in a massive fireball. If it would then I'd have been burned up by now, having worked with oxygen as a welder, teacher, paramedic, and Nitrox certified scuba diver. I've got an O2 generator at my desk right now and can't get anything to spontaneously ignite with it. A beaker full of O2 does make a piece of paper towel burn a bit more vigorously if I set it on fire first though.

[@ethanmckinney203]

Wow. Another fascinating video on a topic that I was certain I wouldn't care about.

[@TheKajunkat]

Pretty much anything that is combustible could catch fire in a very oxygen rich environment (Apollo 1 disaster proved that). Leather, cloth, etc could ignite but more likely fuel/oils from ruptured lines (once it gets started, the combustion can burn metals as fuel too). however, the fire would probably be short lived due to the rapid consumption of the oxygen. After that, the combustion would have to use the reduced oxygen concentration at the high elevation so it would probably smother quickly unless there was a bunch of liquid fuel available.

[@billyponsonby]

Unlike Apollo 1 a B-17 even with lots of punctures isn’t pressurised with oxygen.

[@wolandpersonal2407]

The explosion, as depicted, looks much more like a vapor explosion. It's also worth noting that although the oxygen in the bottle is pure, as soon as it mixes with the air in the cabin the concentration would drop. 29 ft^3 (the volume of oxygen in the bottle, presumably at 1atm, see timecode 2:36) is a cube about 3ft on each side, so not an awful lot compared to the internal space of the B17.

[@OptiPopulus]

>the combustion can burn metals as fuel too Just like in the video mentioned about shooting an oxygen tank, the final hole diameter is MUCH larger than what the .308 round would have originally caused because the bullet most likely drastically heated up the edges of the metal around the hole the bullet made. The pure/almost pure oxygen then escaped through the hole, causing the heated metal to be fanned into a fire using the surrounding metal as fuel. Thank you for noticing this!

[@dukecraig2402]

​@@wolandpersonal2407 Check out how much more flammable things are just going from 12% oxygen to even just 15%, 20% percent really gets things cooking. It doesn't take 100% for things to start getting nightmarish when it comes to how flammable things are, it happens fast as the percentage of oxygen gets raised.

[@robertslugg8361]

Imagine the flash in that titanic submersible when it went diesel at 400Atm for a couple of milliseconds. Makes bachelor cooking (1 min at 4000 vs 10 minutes at 400) seem like amateur hour. ;-)

[@williambinkley8879]

At the training facility in the Navy, they had placed a very thick wire mesh over the high pressure tanks because they had failed at some point in the past and caused extensive damage and injuries.

[@196cupcake]

Very fair analysis. This was one that I hadn't thought of, but glad I watched. Was the downing of that particular aircraft in Masters of the Air based on first hand accounts? I mean people seeing it from the outside, though someone from inside would be great too. I'm thinking maybe someone saw that B-17 go down the way it did, and the TV show speculated on how it might have played out if we could have seen it from the inside. Or, maybe it was more speculative than that. I'd be interested in videos where you start with a well sourced image of a damaged B-17 and you reverse engineer how it could have gone down.

[@madmeh2929]

They didn’t explode in a later episode, and the fire only occurred after a separate ignition source was combined with the leaking oxygen bottles.

[@The762nato]

You missed a major point . Tracers following up in a oxygen rich environment with flammable materials is capable of that radical fire .

[@oogdiver]

The tracer compound would possibly burn more rapidly in a high oxygen environment but I doubt it as it already contains an oxidiser. Even so, the amount of tracer in each round would be insufficient to cause the huge flash fire portrayed. Remember oxygen is necessary for combustion but is not in itself flammable. A fuel is needed and there's just not enough fuel in a tracer round to cause this kind of fire.

[@The762nato]

@@oogdiver We have an oxidizer the O2 and we're missing the fuel source for that burn . And one other issue is the cannon fire from the ME-109 which has an explosive . This adds to the issue of how much damage was done and at some point there would have been fuel lines connecting the right and left tanks of the aircraft that along with the ignition source of the exploding cannon projectile could have created all 3 components of fire , Ignition, Fuel and oxygen . A simple 8mm hole in the tank as your sawing is correct not a fire issue but having been inside a cramped B-17 with thin aluminum skin and a explosive shell from the cannon exploding in that area you have a tender box that would be lucky if something had not gone wrong , and who said it was a single cannon shell or 8mm bullet ? I'll leave the fire onboard as a probable and not leave it up to just a O2 bottle being ruptured .

[@jerrywatt6813]

As an aircraft maintenance mechanic one of the most dangerous jobs i had was servicing the oxy tanks crack a valve with an oily wrench fire remember oxygen is the ultimate oxidizer and can absolutely raise some hell it depends on tje conditions !remember we lost 3 astronauts due to an oxy fire started by a short circuit and sparks !

[@chemputer]

You know, I honestly just assumed there was a fuel leak that got in the cabin, at that altitude the pressure would be so low it'd evaporate pretty much instantly and make essentially a fuel air bomb, more or less consistent with what's shown.

[@WillN2Go1]

Most of you have probably not tried striking a match and start a campfire at -10 f degrees. It can be difficult because of the cold. At 30,000 ft over Europe, it's significantly colder. According to standard Gas Laws a rapid depressurization of any gas causes a rapid drop in temperature. The basic chemistry of the topic of this video is fire (rapid oxidation through combustion): which requires three components. 1. Oxygen. Here plenty. 2. Heat. the bullet? a spark from a severed electrical wire? into an already sub sub zero environment that is made even colder and 3. Fuel - there isn't much that can burn in the vicinity of the oxygen tanks on these bombers. Likely intended to reduce the risk of a fire.

[@allandavis8201]

A great presentation, interesting and informative, and as a Veteran RAF Airframe Technician I can only agree with everything you said, oxygen alone does not and can not explode, there would need to be the other two necessary components to make the oxygen tank leaking from a fault or puncture, those being a source of ignition and a fuel of some description (aircraft fuel or oil from the engine(s), the ignition source could be an electrical short circuit or a fire within the system itself, and without either of those two components the only risk to the crew would be oxygen depletion forcing them to fly at a lower altitude of around 10-20 thousand feet AGL, obviously making them an easier target for enemy fighters and AAA. I don’t know how the RAF HP system was designed and protected during WWII but when I joined up all onboard gaseous storage bottles/tanks were protected from shattering by being wound around the body of the cylinder with wire, from just below the neck to just above the rounded base, I can’t remember ever seeing any film about that but it was a very long time ago, and with the advent of Liquid Oxygen system it was a different safety system in place, I don’t know of any aircraft flying today that use the OBOGS system that I think was used on the latter MKs of the Harrier VSTOL aircraft, OBOGS being an “Onboard Oxygen Generating System” or even if it was installed on any aircraft, I don’t know if it even worked. Thanks again for a very interesting episode, keep them coming, and I look forward to seeing more in the very near future. TX😀👍🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇺🇸🇺🇦

[@Roddy556]

Do you have any plans for videos about medium bombers?

[@dukecraig2402]

Yea I've been asking for the same, hardly anyone ever does anything on them and certainly not with the accuracy he does his videos, I'd love to see a series done on B25's and B26's.

[@Roddy556]

@@dukecraig2402 besides the bombers themselves I would love to see a deep dive into how WWII close air support was planned and coordinated.

[@Baza1964]

@@dukecraig2402 hell yes !

[@cabanford]

Great channel. Wish KZbin had more of this and less moronic click-bait shite.

[@otpyrcralphpierre1742]

I used to have one of those O2 tanks. I lost it during Katrina.

[@dalestockman4292]

Is it problematic that the oxygen tank in the clip appears to be hit in a direction perpendicular to the flight paths of the bomber and “head on” fighter?

[@jamesharmer9293]

Yes.

[@Milkmans_Son]

You might be taking the "head on" part a bit too literally.

[@dalestockman4292]

@@Milkmans_Son Perhaps. However, two 109s are seen through the front cockpit screens and tracers are shown tearing through the cockpit front to back. "Head on" seems to be a fairly accurate description. Perhaps, then, a ricochet, shrapnel or another fighter coming in from a different direction? Perhaps this was the directors taking some liberties as a shot to the front of an oxygen tank would not have given the visual effect of the one used in the film.

[@Milkmans_Son]

@@dalestockman4292 It didn't look like it made a round hole to me like a direct hit from the side would make. It looked like it either keyholed in or, if the bullet was still stable, entered the tank a couple degrees off the thrust line or whatever we are calling dead on the nose (which makes sense since the fighter didn't ram the bomber trying to stay on target too long). Either way, I'm pretty sure they didn't think anyone was going to do an extensive forensic analysis of every bullet trajectory in the film (or for that matter, care).

[@BobDuffy-kf2pf]

B-17s had armored seat backs for the pilot and co-pilot.Rounds coming into the plane through the nose and passing through the dashboard instrument cluster (and the flight crew) might not make it through the armor and into the O2 tanks. B-17s flying today have had their armor removed post war, so a tour through a restored B-17 doesn't show all the war-time gear.

[@gotanon9659]

From the looks of it the fire started with either an electrical device/cable that got hit and short circuit or most likely it started from the tracer round that penned the cabin but stayed there

[@FutureFlash2034]

I would just like to point out many aircraft both Axis and Allied would carry incindiary rounds, with the germans using high explosive-incindiary rounds or minengeshoss rounds. So when you see the footage of the tanks venting oxygen making that tiny space oxygen rich, and then further enemy rounds flying into the compartment, it is very realistic to assume an incindiary round releasing it's contents when burning or shattering the highly combustable material into the oxygen rich section. This in turn ignites the bottles.

[@matthewcaughey8898]

Mine shells refers to the cannon rounds used by the 109s. They tended to use those in vertical diving or vertical ascending attacks cause they didn’t have many shots. I think they had 30 to 40 for the 30mm cannon. The 109s preferred to get close to maximize their chances of hitting something important with the limited ammunition they had to expend

[@dennis1701e]

@@matthewcaughey8898 you are mistaken at least paritally, in head on attacks they usually fired their entire armament considering that it was the chance to instantly take out the controls and pilots which would have meant an instant downing of said bomber and for the Mk 108 30mm cannon they had 65 rounds available while for the 20mm 151/20 it would have been 200 which in case of the 30mm is enough for multiple passes and in case of the more likely 20mm cannon being used quite a lot of passes, besides that as mentioned in other comments they seem to be later G model 109s which also had 13mm MGs that just as much had explosive shells in them. Additionally Minengeschosse as mentioned above are HEI together with 13mm MGs also firing incendary rounds and it being likely that the 20mm used also fired incendary rounds as well.

[@alistercrowe8531]

Depending on the mission, I'd suggest: Incendiaries in the bomb load. Hydraulic fluid, ether was used at the time. Fuel is a possibility, there are lines running from wing to wing to allow cross-flow Though depending on the level of damage, there would have been enough outside air blasting through the plane to dilute excess oxygen back down to normal levels.

[@turninmonyin2noise978]

The second to last bomber shown, the silver one. the Happy Warrior,was piloted by my Uncle , Walt Center. It was hit by parts of an incendary bomb from another plane that blew up after release. They were bombing an airfield in Parcham Germany. When those that survived the bomb hit landed under the silk, they did not get a warm welcome from the town folks that lived near the airfield.

[@wonniewarrior]

I noticed the Pilot and Co-Pilot oxygen system on the B-17 were from different set of oxygen tanks. Was this designed so if 1 system went down it only took out 1/2 the flying pair or was it a happy accident it happened to be separated ?

[@garynew9637]

Another classy video, thanks.

[@obsidianjane4413]

Hydraulic fluid from the shot up brakes and cowl control system. Plausible.

[@jackrowe9807]

Fantastic information thanks for the work you put into this article 😅

[@daffyduk77]

Apollo-1 Fire ...not a direct comparison. But indicates how material which might not be considered high risk could be a tinder-box in the right circumstances

[@bensmith7536]

The Gilbert Huph voiceover adds a certain touch. : )

[@paradiselost9946]

theres some channel that shoots an oxygen cylinder or two... and as long as the round has enough energy to penetrate, it also has enough energy to locally heat the metal to the point where it can ignite due to having pure oxygen in contact with it, and the subsequent hole is "thermal lanced" out as the metal is ignited for the brief instant the tank takes to empty...

[@greenleaf239]

Is the diagram of the B17 fuel system starting at 7:05 showing 2 fuel tanks within the fuselage? If so, maybe that is the source for the fire.

[@BobDuffy-kf2pf]

The B-17 had fuel and oil tanks only withing the wings. If they had auxiliary fuel tanks like they used on ferry flights, they would be in the bomb bay. They were not used on combat missions.

[@Baza1964]

I didn't hear you mention it but I'm assuming all those aircraft oxygen tanks are full of compressed ATMOSPHERIC air , not pure oxygen .Maybe just filtered (charcoal) and dried , same as a scuba tank,

[@ruperterskin2117]

Appreciate ya. Thanks for sharing.

[@Milkmans_Son]

I think combustible materials would be a better description than flammable materials in the context of burning more readily in an oxygen rich environment. I doubt there were any flammable materials in the Apollo 1 command module.

[@Your.God.is.a.Delusion]

Semantics.

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

Thanks for video.

[@slick4401]

If a cannon shell exploded in an environment with a high level of oxygen, its explosive power would be enhanced several times. Just a thought.

[@derek45auto23]

Great content, as always,....HOLLYWOOD gets a lot of things wrong.

[@jeffreycompton9425]

Aviator breathing oxygen is not pure oxygen. It’s a purified mix of oxygen and nitrogen. More likely to extinguish a fire.

[@ericnyktas639]

In short the tanks didn’t explode in flames because they weren’t high pressured and slowly leaked oxygen, correct?

[@kennetth1389]

My thought before watching was tracer or bullet? After watching, I don't think it would matter. Oxygen fire risk was mitigated quite well.

[@johnwatson3948]

These cylinders appear to have continued on to 1950’s SAC bombers, don’t know but assume same low pressure ones.

[@gort8203]

The B-47 was designed in the 1940s and had a low pressure O2 system. The 50s era B-52 and KC-135 had liquid oxygen systems. There were yellow portable bottles used for walking around inside the aircraft, and they were refilled from the LOX system.

[@dusterowner9978]

Food for thought : Oxygen is not flammable, but it can cause other materials that burn to ignite more easily and to burn far more rapidly. The result is that a fire involving oxygen can appear explosive-like. Google search .

[@ffjsb]

Hollywood always gets fire and explosions wrong.

[@SoloRenegade]

2:12 that was CGI

[@MISTERLeSkid]

Apollo 1 was an enclosed space with a pure oxygen static environment and they assumed it was a spark that caused a raging fire that killed all three astronauts. How can it not do the same if there are sudden jets of highly compressed oxygen like in that scene?

[@crossbow42]

OK, what about Carlton Biddick and his death in Escape Kit during the Aug. 17 Schwienfurt raid? The way I heard it, the battle damage was both to the hydraulic lines and oxygen tanks. Hydraulic oil, spewing oxygen, exploding 20mm cannon shells.... what could go wrong? Is that a possiblity? (Note that this particular incident is more famous for the way the copilot, Richard Snyder, escaped the blazing cockpit through the side window -- according to the surviving bombardier, Biddick was apparently killed by the same burst of fire that caused the fire.)

[@BobDuffy-kf2pf]

The USAAF deliberately did not use flammable hydraulic fluid during our the war.

[@boatrat]

You keep saying "enjoyed" these videos. I don't know if that's... quite the right word, exactly. What I CAN say, is I am certainly being Educated! 👍

[@jayfrank1913]

Learning is fun!

[@556m4]

Do you enjoy being educated ? I do. And you gon learn today.

[@jcwoodman5285]

What's max altitude without oxygen?

[@blahBLAH-hw7ry]

Things will burn VERY fast in a pure oxygen environment. Could a fireball that size come from just the pilots and their clothing burning up? It would be interesting to know if any effort was made to use fire retardant materials in other areas insulation panels, seats, pneumatic lines, etc back then.

[@b.griffin317]

Would API ammunition ignite ox tanks?

[@ealingwest5750]

Generally the 7.92 MG's had a tracer mix in the belt to give German pilot visual on strafing runs therefor a burning tracer could start a fire if gasoline fumes were present Also incendiary rounds were also occasionally used, as for an exploding 20mm canon shell thats a definite fireball in the making. I have witnessed the terror of battle and I wish one day humans will channel their ingenuity toward a brighter peaceful future instead of inventing new awful weapons, but alas to or eternal shame I doubt that will ever happen.

[@spike7319]

Just the combination of pure Oxygen and Oil/ Grease is deadly and would cause a fire. What happened when a bomb was hit, lets say with incendiary or mine bullet? Would it penetrate the hull?

[@pilotblue6535]

Incendiary rounds? Electrical fires/shorts.

[@Your.God.is.a.Delusion]

Still no available fuel. Atomspheric oxygen needs fuel to burn why wouldn't pure oxygen?

[@JeffBilkins]

What would happen in the bomb load gets hit, either by fighter weapons or AA shrapnel? GP bombs seem more sturdy then these tanks or most things on a bomber, but the incendiary ones could be spicy?

[@BobDuffy-kf2pf]

GP bombs had thick steel casings (about 1/3 inch) but most importantly, the explosive had to be intitiated by the booster charges in the nose and/or tail fuzes.

[@Raccoon12008]

I ate an entire tin of cream cheese in like a minute and now I see what It feels like to be upside down in a plane!

[@matthewcaughey8898]

Your soon find out what flammable gas means

[@gertjevanpoppel7270]

Oxygen is not the same as air and they are stored in different bottles and pressure. Pure oxygen is stored under much higher pressure and small cilinders than air. In what I have seen over the years it seems to me that these are air bottles and not oxygen. Oxygen is highly reactive and ignites with just about anything while air is a much saver option . Many of us know about the accident with the testing of the crew capsule on the apollo rocket that cost the lives of the astronauts because this was a oxygen filled compartment and it was ignited by electrical spark/short.

[@SynthRockViking]

Just make the bottles armored? "No, we must have more bombs 😩"

[@bdowton]

So dumb questions are the ones you don’t ask with that in mind, wouldn’t a 20mm explosive round hitting a air tank create a larger explosion damaging more tanks releasing more oxygen thus increasing the fuel for the explosion making it bigger?

[@BobDuffy-kf2pf]

To get to the tank, the 20mm HE round would have passed though and struck other parts of the plane, detonating there.

[@External2737]

Fascinating video. The insulation on B-17s were known to be flamable, in particular in surplus oxygen. The 7.92mm rounds often had incendiary component to set fuel tanks on fire. But the gas fire... doesn't make sense. However, it could have been an insulation fire.

[@matthewcaughey8898]

Every machine gun belt has tracer rounds included in it. They’re typically every 5th round to help you see where they’re going. Germans used green tracers so it’s not out of the question that a tracer round can start a fire

[@duncandmcgrath6290]

Where exactly was this insulation? I’ve toured a couple B17’s on display, no insulation.

[@External2737]

@@duncandmcgrath6290 Then removed. It was in the fuselage walls to keep crew from freezing.

[@gastonbell108]

That's not how oxygen-fed fires work in an unsealed environment. The gas would feed any existing fires in the immediate area as it escaped the plane, but it wouldn't cause the asbestos in the fuselage walls to instantly become flash paper. Remember the plane is unpressurized and (now) full of holes - the oxygen rapidly diffuses into the thin air. If this scene was accurate, there would have been basically zero US bombers who survived moderate battle damage from 7.92 slugs (instead of untold hundreds).

[@External2737]

@@gastonbell108 The German 8mm rounds had incendiary. By increasing the oxygen, the energy required to sustain an insulation fire plummets. So my scenario is accurate. Pure oxygen makes it far easier to start a fire. It also makes fires far hotter (no inert nitrogen the that must be heated up). "Feed" doesn't explain all the physics going on. In a high oxygen environment, the insulation was far easier to set on fire, and burned hotter; this more likely to become self sustaining.

[@danbrit9848]

omfg ...i have one of those...it has no paint on it atall tho and has a bolt/hook in each end ...i got it at the bottom of a lake so maby it was repurposed as a boat float or marker that sank ...its now the case to my pc ...highly modded out

[@TallDude73]

Ah, Hollywood - anything flashy, hot or bright is great.

[@Brough1111]

I talked to a gunner on a B17 40 years ago same thing they tried to ignite the 109s oxygen tank

[@Dilley_G45]

It's Bf-109....not Me109

[@lexchaotica190]

Incendiary bullets ?

[@foreverpinkf.7603]

Like a well-hated, young actress stated: It´s Hollywood, Baby.

[@anzelmasmatutis2500]

Movie magic made the fire :P

[@dsfs17987]

"Hollywood" is the source of fuel of all "oxygen related" fires in movies context 😉

[@T34-E]

Episode 1 had too much CGI. I didn't continue. At least in Band of Brothers we still got to see read aircraft

[@tm5123]

Those B-24/B-17s on fire etc, are haunting to look at.

[@johnharrop5530]

I’ve got a tank that was made into a compressor

[@Stoy981]

Edwin Sarkissian is not a reliable source of accurate information.

[@sforza209]

Is it just a coincidence that the b-24 has 24 bottles of oxygen? lol

[@spete3476]

oil and o2 dont mix well any oil in the air will burn

[@EDKguy]

Next your gonna tell if you stuff one in a shark's mouth and shoot it that it won't blow uo the shark? Asking for a Sheriff friend.

[@BELCAN57]

It was a "plot contrivance".

[@tedtessitore355]

Was an issue in B17s

[@peetsnort]

When handling goods for shipping theres clear guidelines for different cargoes. So like coffee beans you traditional l kept them far away from other smelly cargoes. Coffee will absorb. Likewise oxygen and combustible products. Hence the say . Putting out fires with gasoline. Or modern version. Lithium fires are self perpetuating as far as oxygen goes

[@Joe-j5j1u]

Oxygen won't burn? I know some people on Oxygen tanks who have been severely burned when accidentally igniting their Oxygen...... unless im missing something

[@roberthardy3090]

Igniting themselves, their clothing, anything even slightly flammable about then, surely you've done the glowing splint test for oxygen in school chemistry, a cigarette basically explodes into flame if you try to light it in an oxygen rich atmosphere.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

400psi is quiet high.

[@dsfs17987]

directors fantasy is the source of fuel of all "oxygen related" fires in movies context 😉

[@stejer211]

Literally everything about Masters Of The Air was wrong, the worst air war movie of all time.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

You've been told a million times to stop exaggerating.

[@mrj4990]

@@grizwoldphantasia5005He's not wrong you trog, it was a half assed attempt with vapid dialogue and cliches and strayed from history so much.

[@stejer211]

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 You clearly know nothing about aviation and WWII history.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@@stejer211 You clearly know nothing of humor, sarcasm, or air war movies.

[@stejer211]

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 Humor and sarcasm must be recognizable as such to be effective.

[@HongyaMa]

Avgas oil grease hydralic fluid and Oxygen what could go wrong 😬

[@BobDuffy-kf2pf]

The foward cabin of the B-17F dad not have grease, oil, or avgas. the hyrdaulic fluid used at the time was non-flammable on purpose.

[@diver11b1p2]

No point in letting the facts get in the way of a brutal scene...

[@XMJ3904]

?🤔? If the scene doesn't line up with reality, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of showing it in the first place?

[@orbitalair2103]

Well, its tv, so any excuse to show a fire. My only thought is the bomber is a G model, and the nose turret hydraulics got hit spraying fluid about. the extra o2 and a spark form a 20mm shell set it off. But look at the number of items that have to happen in order for that to work. The shattered windscreens work against this, dispersing the concentrated o2 quickly.

[@mattcavanaugh6082]

No Gs, only Fs in MotA.

[@SharkHustler]

The G-series model of the B-17 (featuring the 'chin'-turret installation) wasn't in production at the time of this [first-episode] incident (in early '43 [as outlined in the uploader's description], nor throughout the majority of '43). Regardless - hydraulic-lines or not - the cause of such fires could've ranged from anything in between a failed electrical line/outlet, or right down to a 'fart-smella's-[?!] ... I mean, a 'smart-fella' airman's - own inadvertent fart.

[@motha_trucker]

incendiary ammunition

[@randomnickify]

oxygen doesn't burn

[@motha_trucker]

@@randomnickify no but if an incendiary round hits oxygen it will burn harder/bigger/brighter and set everything on fire

[@Nickrioblanco1]

Saying the engulfing flame is questionable is excessively charitable. I would call it total BULL S**T!

[@martyschrader]

It's crApple. As with all things crApple, this too is BS. What did you expect?

[@johnreep5798]

Maybe the pilot was smoking a cigarette.