Comments by "Keit Hammleter" (@keithammleter3824) on "The Device that Won WW2 - The Cavity Magnetron" video.

  1.  @paulgaskins7713  : The proximity fuze (VT fuze) was far far more important. As this video said, there were alternatives to the cavity magnetron - the klystron and travelling wave tube - it's just that the cavity magnetron was smaller, lighter, and less finicky. Although used in land and ship-borne radar, the cavity magnetron was not as important as it was in airborne applications. In WW2 Australia produced a quite good aircraft detection radar using certain triode valves in a novel way - this radar was even supplied to US troops in the Pacific theatre. Britain had no defence against the V1 flying bomb - none. And V1's were simple things that were made in thousands in basic facilities using slave labour. Churchill arranged for importation of VT-fuze ammunition and radar controlled AA guns from the USA just in time. The US had banned the use of VT-fuze over land, but Churchill got special approval, as without it Britain would have almost certainly lost the war. If Britain had collapsed, Hitler would have regained access to oil and probably would not have needed to subdue the USSR while at the same time been more able to do so. The atomic bomb was not used against Germany, and thus is completely irrelevant to wining in Europe. It was used in Japan, but by the time it was used, Japan had essentially already lost - the atomic bomb was not a war winner, it merely hastened Japanese surrender and avoided the need to invade and fight within Japan.
    1
  2.  @heikos4264  : It's the same as headlines in tabloid newspapers. Both newspapers and YouTube presenters go for a sensational headline to get clicks/readers. Actually, YouTube videos are like tabloid newspaper articles anyway - tending to report facts in a distorted sensationalist way. It works - YT quality presenters like US WWII Bombers get far less clicks that sensationalist distorters like Mark Felton. People like to be titillated, not informed.
    1
  3. To Heiko S: You responded to my comment in this thread on sensationalism in YouTube by personally attacking someone whose YT videos I commented on. I never attack the person, I attack what he said. You post was inappropriate.
    1