Martin NBS-1 | Embarrassing The US Navy Since 1921

[@RexsHangar]

I hope you all like the new channel icon! (Because it is here to stay) 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.

[@rebelfriend9006]

Do you plan on doing anything about the B-32?

[@FMKeb]

Can you do the SPECAT Jaguar, Panavia Tornado, or Eurofighter?

[@anelstarcevic696]

Q: why did you change your channel icon Q: is there a chance you will revert to old icon

[@Zorglub1966]

Hi! As usual : Zeppelin Staaken(s). Thank you!👍

[@oldesertguy9616]

I can't fault you for choosing the Spitfire. It may not have been the very best fighter of the war, but it accomplished and, more importantly, personified, the defiance of Britain and hope for the Allies. And I'm American, btw.

[@aslamnurfikri7640]

REX IS BACK

[@Jpdt19]

Gordon's alive!!!!!

[@CHIPY_XD]

I think this channel is highly underrated

[@oliversmith9200]

Well here we are the fans of the channel. In the right place. :)

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

meto

[@williamharvey8895]

Agreed

[@ImWearingPantsNow]

I think this comment is highly underrated.

[@Holoarc]

I fell in love with this channel as soon as I found it, immediately told everyone I know that is into aviation history

[@Twelvegage511]

He's back! It's always a good day when we get some Rex content.

[@tombogan03884]

Glad to see you back Rex.

[@Otokichi786]

I recall reading that an admiral suggested to Gen. Mitchell that a near miss would do more damage to a ship than a direct hit. This proved to be true, as noted in the video.

[@trplankowner3323]

Depends on where it hit. Near misses near the stern have a lot of potential to do damage. While a hit on an armor plate may do nothing but kill sailors exposed on the weather decks and deafen crew inside the ship's armored citadel.

[@ThePlayerOfGames]

​@@trplankowner3323true but the bombs aren't dropped arbitrarily, thus with this knowledge you'd see that the training and actions bear towards targeting these more vulnerable areas with those appropriate weapons.

[@trplankowner3323]

@@ThePlayerOfGames That totally explains the USAAC's results at the Battle of Midway then.

[@Brekwon97]

Love the in-depth content you give. Gives much more context to the world that built these planes. Continue the good work. 👍

[@oliversmith9200]

Indubitably he does.

[@mightaswellbe]

Thanks for that one Rex. I'd like to suggest the Curtiss AT-9, commonly called the Jeep. A twin-engine trainer designed to mimic the new high wing loading twins that were new in service such as the P-38 and the Martin B-26. My father flew them as a student and then as an instructor down at Williams Field, Arizona. He said it was a sweet fling airplane but would bite the unwary or careless. Only a few hundred were built and at the end of the war all were scrapped or sold to civil aviation schools as mechanic's hacks. None were sold for flying purposes as it was deemed too squirrely for civil aviation use. Only one complete airframe exists at the Wright-Pat Museum (I think) and that ws salvaged from at least two incomplete hulks. Supposedly there is a partial hulk at Pima.

[@oxcart4172]

Thanks for this. I'd never heard of it before. Quite a nice looking plane

[@Discopuss]

Great! Reminds me I wrote a history paper in high school on Mitchell's bombing trials, the resistance to the concept, and the ultimate success of the demonstration. I didn't remember the planes involved, so this was a great refresher. Wow high school was such a long time ago! LOL! Thanks!

[@trooperdgb9722]

Success? How? What did those tests prove? That an old ship, motionless, with no AA fire and no DAMAGE CONTROL could (eventually, after a few days) be sunk by aircraft? So what?

[@Discopuss]

​@@trooperdgb9722 Success in motivating key decision-makers to invest in his idea, i.e. the purpose of the demonstration.

[@janlindtner305]

Wellcome back, missed you Rex👍👍👍

[@gyrene_asea4133]

I am so very happy that Rex has had the chance to upload more of his extraordinarily high quality aviation content. IMHO, the best available to plebes like me. Rex is to military aviation as 'Drachinifel' is to Naval material. Top notch. Thank you, Sir!

[@ethanmckinney203]

Drachinifel has a video about the tests. I've read about them on my own. The Navy was extremely enthusiastic about air power, but also realistic. They understood that the torpedo bomber was far more effective than level bombers because its stand-off range made it vaguely survivable. If you look at the altitude of Mitchell's attacks, you'll notice that he was at pistol range from the spotting tops. Mitchell's complaints about how unfair the conditions of the tests were are hilarious. Complete whining and insisting on utterly unrealistic conditions (a string of buoys to follow to the anchored targets because the bombers couldn't navigate on their own, for example). Also, the whole point of the tests was to find the *MOST* effective weapons against ships, but Mitchell sabotaged them by using bombs out of order and sinking Ostfriesland before other weapons could be tested. Then he released deceptively edited film clips to the newsreels. The first shot is a medium altitide bomb release, filming straight down from inside the bomb bay. Then it cuts to an enormous bomb blast next to the ship--but that's one of the ridiculously low altitude drops. It gives the clear impression of excellent accuracy from medium altitude.

[@alexandermonro6768]

The biggest rigging of the exercise was that the ships were moored as completely stationary targets, with no opportunity to manoeuvre or evade. Also, there was no anti aircraft defence (although in a peacetime exercise, that might've taken realism a trifle far) :)

[@ethanmckinney203]

@@alexandermonro6768 And no damage control. The idea that the crew wouldn't have taken action to stop the flooding is absurd. It might have *failed*, but you can't ignore it.

[@Easy-Eight]

I'm an USAF veteran and hate Mitchell's tests. The USAAF was almost completely useless in the 1st six months of WWII because of Mitchell's legacy. The only USAAF commander who is really innovative is Kenney because he figured out how to make the B-25s into ship killers and told his Pilots to use the P-47 as an effective combat aircraft.

[@slome815]

@@alexandermonro6768 And some of the watertight doors didn't seal either.

[@bhumiriady]

I see a new Rex's Hangar video, instant watch for me. I really enjoyed it so much, as usual. Also, I love the new icon so much.^^

[@BleedingUranium]

Rimi!

[@bhumiriady]

@@BleedingUranium That's right! Rimi is my top best girl in Bandori, that's why I love her so much.^^

[@bhumiriady]

@MilitaryInsights12 I agree with you on that one!^^

[@gabehowe2778]

The legend returns! Missed these. Hopefully this marks a more consistent return to content as before.

[@whyjnot420]

It really shows how far things have come in just over a century. When your average car can move faster in a straight line and engines with similar power are readily available. (also, the automotive world incorporating tons of stuff initially developed with planes in mind is an interesting topic in and of itself)

[@MisterApol]

The ship under the airburst phosphorus bomb is the old battleship USS Alabama (BB-8).

[@mewintle]

Pet peeve: “founder” is something that’s failing. “Flounder” is something that’s flipping around.

[@BazingusBoi]

So glad I live in the same country as you because I always have something good and new to watch while I'm awake when you post

[@jankarlsson5358]

Welcome back, you are probably missed by a lot of people... And as always you make everything interesting. Also this video is very good. Thanks!😃👍

[@WoopersDad]

Your videos are like food for my soul Rex! Ive learned so much through them

[@majorbloodnok6659]

Great to have you back

[@eyerollthereforeiam1709]

Good to hear from you, Rex.

[@ColonelFrontline1152]

Me: *"Time for me to go to bed."* Rex's Hanger: *Upload new video* My Sleeping Schedule: *"Am I A Joke To You!"*

[@Bird_Dog00]

Sleeping is overrated anyway...

[@kingleech16]

You can always catch up on sleep while doing unimportant stuff. Driving, operating heavy machinery, learning your wedding vows…

[@Bird_Dog00]

@@kingleech16 True enough. I would at times almost fall asleep while using a turning lathe.

[@gearheadgregwi]

Lowly overrated

[@seanmalloy7249]

Sleep? Isn't that just a completely inadequate substitute for caffeine?

[@pfalzerwaldgumby4798]

Good to have you back!

[@GrahamWKidd]

Rex is BACK BABY!!!!

[@luislealsantos]

Welcome back. Hope all better.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

Good to see you back and Billy Mitchell was RIGHT!😊👍🏻

[@Easy-Eight]

Michell was wrong. His incorrect lessons cost hundreds of bomber crews over Europe and Pacific. The B-17 was know to be useless against ships. The USAAF was worthless at Midway. Had the same USAAF post Bismarck Sea been at Midway in June of '42 the Japanese could not have approached inside of 300 miles. Thank General Kenney for that.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

@Easy-Eight someone speaking from experience I see.🤣 The navy learned their lesson eventually. Now all they are is a support group for the aircraft on the carriers and those things with wings on them that fly out of the VLS tubes. The B52 is still here. Armored warships are extinct. Who was right?

[@Easy-Eight]

@@sadwingsraging3044 Support from airpower wins wars. Strategic airpower is of limited use. The B-52, B-1, and B-2 bombers were worthless over Iraq and Afghanistan. The A-10 was considered worth its weight in gold and the USAF wants to shut it down. BTW, the US Navy invented the AIM-9 and the USAF wasted its time on the AIM-4 family, worthless over Vietnam. The 200+ mile AIM-174B has been developed from the US Navy's RIM-174, the missiles roots goes back to the early 1950s. The USAF was wasting time flying the pokey B-36 bomber. Last, the USN operates more submarines and destroyers than the total of B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers. Seems that the Navy is right.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

@Easy-Eight I'm sorry. What has any of that to do with my statement of FACT that Billy Mitchell was RIGHT in that Death from ABOVE is how you win wars. He seen it coming and anyone talking about 'Level bombers' is just showing us PURE COPE. When Billy was saying this airpower was in its infancy. You can COPE. You can SEETH. You can kick your feet and cry _all you want_ but it changes nothing about how he had the vision and the balls to promote air power.🤣

[@marcusrussell8660]

So how is this ancient airplane embarrassing the U.S. Navy since 1921?

[@pjduker05]

I always have love for your videos. This is yet another wonderful one. Bravo sir!

[@alanwoods2010]

I really enjoy these videos covering interwar aircraft. Nicely done!

[@jamessimmons9782]

I've missed you and your videos, Rex. Glad to have you back.

[@rob13854]

Welcome back mate and thanks for the new video

[@alcolach5925]

I went to one of my local museum and they were playing thing in the background but then I heard the intro to one of your videos

[@ChaiChai-u3u]

Hope you well. Thank you for always great content.

[@stnylan]

Welcome back Rex. With Ostfriesland Mitchell basically invalidated the test with his dodgy shenanigans - were similar shenanigans in play with the pre-dreadnaughts sunk later?

[@DornishVintage]

Rex is back! As a more recent follower of the channel, I've spent the last 6 weeks watching back what I think is every video except the 4-hour summaries. Which will be nice little resources once I need to refresh my memory.

[@redrampoly9321]

Welcome back mate.

[@Apocalyptico100]

Welcome back Rex! ❤

[@brent1041]

Glad your back. Keep up the great work

[@garryferrington811]

You're

[@nilo70]

I’m Glad you are back in the saddle Rex ! The new Icon looks Great ! Cheers From California 😎

[@WrightsW5]

Nice to see you back 😀

[@simonedallachiesa9804]

Great video, as always. And welcome back, of course.

[@andrewmountford3608]

It’s so good to have you back Rex.

[@alandinsmore]

Well done. I hope you will do more on Martin, a very interesting company.

[@montaramike]

welcome back! I have been missing your great videos!

[@wbertie2604]

Lunch and Rex. Excellent

[@MattnessLP]

I wonder what happened in Billy Mitchell's life to turn him from a navy aviation guy to a notorious cheater in gaming competitions

[@buonafortuna8928]

Welcome back Rex

[@paulsmodels]

Glad to see you back!

[@forthwithtx5852]

One of my favorite shows on The History Channel was “Great Planes”. Also, “History of the Gun”. I would put your little channel here on KZbin up with those any day.

[@jollyjohnthepirate3168]

Keep up the great work Rex.

[@Dank_Lulu]

Digging how the new logo!

[@seansimpson4472]

Glad your all sorted Rex and best wishes

[@HeedTheLorax]

OMG Rex is back! Now I don't know what to watch first, Drachinifel and the Town class destroyer, ocean conservation Namibia with a technical rescue, or that Irish baker with funny stories?

[@wadejustanamerican1201]

Thanks for the video, great stuff.

[@billwebb5256]

Missed you Rex!

[@ponyote]

Glad you're back on your feet. Welcome back, Captain.

[@jimsvideos7201]

Good show as always Rex.

[@mkaustralia7136]

Great video as always

[@sergioleone3583]

Good to have Rex back!

[@jamesdavies98]

Glad to see you back Rex. Hope you have survived in tact

[@marckyle5895]

Much appreciated, Rex. Thanks. All I'd ever seen before now was a couple of photos and a 1 page summary in a USAF bombers history book or two.

[@peterblackburn5793]

Rex's channel provides me with good information on aircraft history.

[@Rafael-nz6pp]

Great video. As usual!

[@sjTHEfirst]

Another great video. Thank you.

[@Rom3_29]

Yay, a new episode from down under. Rex’s Hanger has a new roof over his head.

[@yeetmcskeet6872]

The return of the Rex 🫅

[@pencilpauli9442]

Welcome back! Please do make a video about Billy Mitchell turning ships into coral reefs!

[@guestmatejek9029]

I have lego set that looks very similar to this plane, awesome! Thanks, Rex, I enjoy your histories.

[@jasonz7788]

Great video thanks rex

[@oliversmith9200]

Well those are odd looking wheel assembly with ball structures on either side of the wheel centers. The pneumatic shock absorbers in those? I wonder wonder wonder and it's fun to.

[@GruntBig]

another day, another banger

[@jasonz7788]

Great job thanks Rex

[@myplane150]

Please do a video on Project B soon. That would be really appreciated now that you've got my curiosity up...☺

[@boardnski156]

Yay, Rex is back!

[@adrianyallop2880]

You're back, excellent stuff indeed Rex. Hope the personal sh.te is getting better and you're coping mate Your content is first class and you've been missed.

[@GeneraI_Motors]

Rex is back baby lets fucking go

[@drstevenrey]

You have mentioned these Keystone kites several times. How about a short on this manufacturer.

[@silkyz68]

I was just thinking I hadn't seen a video from you in a while

[@JP-sw5ho]

I didn't recognize the channel at first because of the change to the logo. Great work though

[@Eddewardeke]

Splendid movie! Thanks.

[@marcgrote7540]

Welcome back!!!

[@greenseaships]

He LIVES!! Sweet mother of Christ he LIVES! We have emerged from that dark night and reap the spoils of more REX CONTENT!! Rejoice lads!

[@Blockio1999]

The squabbling leading up to those weapon tests is so funny to me. "You have to cut your strike elements down to far below the size they would be in an actual attack" - "Yeah and YOU have to leave all watertight bulkheads open!" It's like children on the playground. It does make me wonder, how those tests would have gone had they been conducted in good faith cooperation, rather than trying to fuck the other branch over at every possible turn for your own prestige and funding.

[@SideshowBen206]

A Project B deep dive collab with Drach would be AWESOME!

[@Luca_Sprues_Model_Kits]

Definitely a very impactful aircraft for the USA! Awesome to have you back Rex, hope the new job and office are going well!

[@George_M_]

The moment the Navy let rhe show happen, they were sunk. Even though the demonstration was hardly technically realistic, the spectacle of it for the media was just too convincing.

[@tomlindsay4629]

Glad to see you back with this great video, hope you've got all your private life problems tackled.

[@davidvavra9113]

Welcome Back!

[@doug-core8850]

The return of the king

[@tonyennis1787]

11:24 Navy: We're not sure planes can hurt a large warship Planes: looks at all those airborne pieces!

[@chamberlane2899]

It wasn’t so much that they doubted aircraft could hurt warships, their doubts were focused more on whether an aircraft could reasonably sink a vessel in a realistic combat situation. At the time, they were probably right considering that dive bombing had yet to be developed, so any aerial attack would depend on either torpedo bombing or level bombing. Now, torpedo bombing would have been highly effective against most of the pre-ww1 cruisers and dreadnoughts, and fairly effective against more modern designs, but it would be some time until you could have enough on hand to reliably sink a significant naval unit. Torpedo bombers of this time being very large, dedicated designs. Level bombing meanwhile… it just sucked. In WW2, the only incidences of level bombing working were against ships at anchor, or that one destroyer too cocky to dodge. The navy were also probably right in pointing out that the dreadnaught of project b was sunk by dozens of paper cuts over several hours, something any damage control team should have been able to fix. It really wouldn’t be until the development of dive bombing, and the development of more capable air-dropped torpedos that aircraft would start being a practical threat. And even then, early on into ww2, their usefulness was being demonstrated with attacks at night against navies with no practical experience fighting an air attack at night.

[@lawrencelewis2592]

Admirals said that a battleship couldn't be sunk if it was fully manned. Admirals said "They caught us by surprise at Pearl, but a ship fully manned at sea couldn't be sunk!" The Japanese on December 10th, 1941- "Oh yeah?'

[@chamberlane2899]

@@lawrencelewis2592 to be fair, the kind of attacks Mitchell’s aircraft were conducting (level bombing) would prove useless in ww2 against a moving target, leading to a lot of wasted effort and unnecessarily lost lives. Also, Mitchell was a bit too far off the deepened believing carriers would prove useless in the war to come, so I can see why a navy investing in the worlds largest carrier force would resist him.

[@lawrencelewis2592]

@@chamberlane2899 I have read that high-altitude bombing was tried on Japanese ships and was found to be useless. The film "The Court Martial of Billy Mitchell" is worth seeing, a great cast and Rod Steiger steals the show.

[@chamberlane2899]

@@lawrencelewis2592 yeah, about the only success I know about involved a Japanese destroyer that looked back at the hours of failed bombing runs attempted on it, and decided that stopping to refuel would be a swell idea. Outside of that, hardly any successes against a resisting target.

[@tonyennis1787]

7:10 were counter-rotating props not yet a thing?

[@johnparrish9215]

You know, you have the best opening sound track of any KZbin channel...WELL DONE Sir.

[@trplankowner3323]

Gen. Mitchell certainly embarrassed both Army and Navy higher-ups. Yet when it came time for his bombers to do something that would have an important effect when the US was on its back foot, USAAC bombers accomplished almost nothing at the Battle of Midway. 15 Boeing B-17s bravely forced the 4 Japanese carriers to maneuver for a while, all their bombs missing. While 4 Martin B-26s launched their torpedoes which all missed, one B-26 strafed 1 carrier and killed 2 men. It seems Mitchell's theory caused more embarrassment to the Army and Navy brass (it didn't take a genius to do that), than they did actual damage to a real enemy that was fighting back. Perhaps Mitchell should have invited the IJN to come to a dead stop like the Ostfriesland, maybe even to keep their fighters in the hanger.

[@Easy-Eight]

The USAAF performed so poorly in December 1941 to mid 1942 that General MacArthur considered USAAF aircraft to be non-effective. This continued until he met General Kenney of the USAAF. Kenney took the B-25s and modified them to attack using skip bombing techniques. Kenney was only receiving the P-47, P-40, and some P-38s from late '42. Kenney contacted *Ford* of Australia and had them make a large fuel tank for the P-47, called "the Brisbane" tank. Then the P-47 became a beast in the Pacific. Strange that Rex has such a great opinion of General Mitchell while it was Rex who admitted that Kenney did more for the USAAF in the Pacific than the rest of the USAAF command structure.

[@trplankowner3323]

@@Easy-Eight "P-47 became a beast in the Pacific", yeah, the Thunderbolt did that wherever it went. The phrase "large and in charge" comes to mind!

[@Easy-Eight]

@@trplankowner3323 Initially the P-47 was of limited use. Indeed, the USAAF would have been better off flying the F4U Corsair in early '43 until the Brisbane tanks were invented. If you dig down in the history books the British gave a lots of Spitfires as lend lease to the USA in Europe. You didn't dare fly a P-39 or P-40 over Northern Europe in 1942 or 1943. It's beyond me why people defend Mitchell. Thousands of airmen died because of his legacy and it didn't go away until SAC was disbanded in the early 1990s.

[@trplankowner3323]

@@Easy-Eight Yeah, they told themselves nonsense like; "the bomber will always get through" and "we can hit a pickle barrel from 10,000 feet". Which was all BS. They should have remembered what professional always concern themselves with, logistics. It won the Guadalcanal campaign. It could have saved thousands in Europe. The Nazis simply had to focus on their submarine campaign, they had no choice. US and Uk leaders should have focused on those Atlantic U-boat bases in France. That would have exploited Nazi logistic problems and simplified Allied logistics. They could have flown against those cities every night and destroyed the rail lines and roads feeding the cities. That might not have ever stopped the Nazi U-boats, but it certainly would have hurt the Third Reich a lot worse than ineffective bombing of German industry right through the very teeth of Germany's air defenses. Everyone has to pick their fights and that was a monumental blunder of a choice!

[@kyle857]

No one claimed that a bomber couldn't sink a battleship that was sitting still and uncrewed; that couldn't maneuver, fight back or perform damage control. That particular test was useless for anything other than securing funding.

[@jamesjacobson3966]

Mitchell was the US’s answer to Hermann Goering. Everything that flies must belong to the US Army Air Service and there was absolutely no allowance for naval aviation especially carriers. Maybe add a little bit of British PM Stanley Baldwin to e.g. “ The bomber will always get through”.

[@bryanparkhurst17]

You really need to do an episode on theA-36 Apache.

[@brucermarino]

Excellent and balanced. And, ab proper "Welcome back!"

[@Kellen6795]

He's back!!!

[@johannderjager4146]

He has RETURNED!

[@lewiswestfall2687]

Thanks Rex

[@alganhar1]

The problem with Mitchell's test against that battleship is they took place over multiple days. The ship was absolutely still. All her inner compartments were open (which they would not be in battle). And Mitchell broke the rules of the test. Meaning he did not actually *prove* anything, because at the end of the day those bombers did not sink the ship. She was scuttled by the USN after they got bugger all of the actual data they wanted from the exercise. Mitchell however did his usual grandstanding thing. The reason why the USN was annoyed about the test has as much to do with the fact that they wanted to determine how much deck armour they needed to protect their capital ships against bombs so they could, you know, factor that into their future ship designs. Mitchel invalidated all of that data, against the agreed rules of the test... If I were the USN I would be pretty hacked off as well!

[@tomt373]

Well maybe he helped them understand their need for the few anti-aircraft weapons they had in December 1941. But your point is well made, since later the famous B-17 was originally envisioned by the USAAF's "Bomber Mafia" as a coastal patrol bomber, capable of sinking any adversarial enemy warships, using the Norden bombsight. Of course in real action in WW 2 in the Pacific, at Midway, they discovered the enemy ships did not sit still for the B-17's dropping bombs. The skillful Japanese captains simply waited, then swerved out of their path once they had been dropped, once again proving the superiority of the U.S. Navy's SBD dive-bombers at Midway. The Army Air Force tried to ignore this for horizontal multi-engine bombing until the British proved the need for fighter-bombers with obsolete P-40's in Africa and the Pacific and later in the ETO.

[@ronwilson9815]

A fan of Drachinifel by any chance? So am I, but on this subject his line of argument is biased by believing USN propaganda and outright lies.

[@charlesfaure1189]

@@ronwilson9815 Perhaps you should elaborate.

[@ronwilson9815]

@@tomt373 The inefficacy of high level horizontal bombing was something Mitchell was well aware of which is why one of the 'rules' he broke was to make a low level approach.

[@tankaxe2447]

The moment the airplane could mount a torpedo, the question was never in doubt that an airplane could sink a battleship. The US Navy knew this, no one needed to 'prove' it because it was obvious. However, the early airplane had limitations such as low loiter times and finding ships at sea being a pain im the ass most times. Bombing, however, was a new subject. Theoretically, a dreadnought battleship was too armored to be sunk by bomb attacks. Thus, the tests. Pershing actually used these tests to mend relationships between the army and navy as well as to learn. The navy learns what damage could be done against capital ships and the army can continue to experiment with their new air corps. Michtell, however, ruined all of it by turning it into a publicity stunt. He claimed that the tests were done to be combat realistic. He didnt need to spot the German battleship, his target was unmanned and unmoving and happilly mounted ridiculous bomb loads that the bombers he had would not carry in actual combat. He didnt let the navy investigate Osterfriesland to study the effects of bomb damage to apply to future warships and despite all the firepower brought against the german battleship it held up spectacularlly well. It was only sunk through leaks that a damage control team could easily patch up. He claimed that the German battleship was Germanys 'newest and greatest warship' when that is far from the truth. Osterfriesland was a second-generation dreadnought with a very outdated design scheme. Every nation that got handed a Hegoland class found that they were useless and promtly scrapped them. The media of course, lapped it all up ans beheld him as a future visionary. Michtell was an egoist who sabotaged the relationship between the Navy and Army and a vision of air power that would be proven definitely wrong in World War 2. He'd hate the concept of a dive bomber, torpedo bomber and hell any bomber that wasnt a B-17. According to him, specialist aircraft were a waste of time and we should've built nothing but four engine bombers and single engine fighters. He's done more to sabotage the aviators cause as he did support them.