Head to Squarespace.com for a free trial, and when you’re ready to launch, go to squarespace.com/BRAINFOOD to save 10% off on your first purchase of a website/domain using the code BRAINFOOD.
FFS HIRE RESEARCHERS THAT KNOW *SOMETHING... ANYTHING.....* ABOUT MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND TACTICS! i feel like your whole staff is zoomers who just google shit the day you shoot these videos.. i love SIMON as a presenter but the subject matter is so poorly researched some times and the "conclusions" drawn by people who have never been within 1000k of a battlefield are wearing a bit thin... between this "hot take" and the other poorly researched "errors" ..im about done wit this channel its not a threat, i know you dont care about 1 sub... but MAYBE my criticism will invoke change after im gone.. ( highly doubt it, since in all your existence, and all your channels, youve not acknowledged fan criticism even once..)
I am now 92 years old and I well remember the V! and the V2 rockets. The V2 rockets being much worrying at the time because you could not hear them coming. I say that I can recall going to the shops one morning at Eltham S.E. london UK. when I heard a double bang a strange noise then a very loud bang a couple of miles and a plume of smoke. The double bang meant nothing at the time but since of course it was the rocket going through the sound barrier. On another occasion I was on a newspaper round and something made me look ahead and there was a very big flash with burning bits going up in the air a few seconds later the shock wave hitch blew the front doors open or a row of terrace houses to my left and gaps in the windows. Fortunately it landed on the edge of Castlewoods at Eltham I believe killing three people living close by. Exciting day's for sure but i cannot ever feeling scared, just excepted it. Happy days!
That’s incredible. Thank you so much for sharing your experience! I love listening to or reading first hand experiences of ww2. My grandfather passed away 22 years ago, I was 8 years old but I very much remember hearing a few stories of his. I wish I had been older then so I could’ve asked questions .
ACME invented the products the Coyote just used them. He actually had a whole live action movie made where he sued ACME but WB is not gonna release it and just use it for tax writeoffs sending it to the IRS vault.
One of the reasons these projects were sometimes unreliable was because the slave labourers used in their construction and assembly, risked an even quicker death by committing acts of sabotage.
What was that quote from the movie "Spartacus" about a free man gives up the good things of life, while the slave gives up the pain and bad things of life?
@@freesk8 While your first statement is 100% correct, your second is 100% false. You seem to be conflating socialism with communism. Socialism is doing just fine in those Scandinavian countries that Donald Trump said that we should be more like. And socialism even has many proud examples in the United States. You see, socialism is nothing more than citizens deciding together to use taxes for their own common good: - Tax money used for public safety is socialism (provided it is used FOR the safety of the public, rather than AGAINST the public for the safety of the government) - A military used for common defense is socialist - building highways and roads for the free transport of goods and customers is socialist - having basics of living met so that we are not slaves to our employers is socialist or perhaps you've heard these things put in another form: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty" NASA is a socialist effort at space-exploration, which Space-X, Blue Origin, Virigin Galactic and the like only exist BECAUSE of rather than NASA preventing their existence. USPS is a socialist effort which led to the creation of FedEx and UPS, again, rather than preventing them. Sheriff and Police Departments are socialist efforts which don't prevent private security companies from existing. Communism, on the other hand, requires the government itself to own the businesses, preventing anyone from working for any company which isn't the government. When people cannot realistically have a choice of who they can work for to make a living, they are effectively slaves and will be disincentivized from working productively. And now that we're talking about it... does it seem like Americans these days have a lot of choice of how to make a living? And do the largest businesses, the ones putting the smaller companies out of business without fear of government intervention anymore, do they seem to be very separate from the government to you? Whether a communist country, where the government owns the businesses, or a fascist country, where the businesses own the government, the people are equally slaves. It is only a democratic-socialist government balanced against a revenue-generating free-market (where "free" means that honest and hardworking small organizations are not allowed to be dominated by underhanded powerful ones, same as "free" individuals) in which individuals are incentivized to reinforce our interdependence on each other.
The most successful countries in the world are the social democratic Nordic countries. Free education, health care, child care, long paid vacations, equal opportunities for all, etc. Not like capitalistic countries like the USA.
@@VidarLund-k5qyeah, but Americans love possessions, and we have plenty. We’re willing to give up our health, longevity, and retirement to have more “stuff”.
Outflanking an enemy from the sky was a brilliant concept, but the basic problem with air-mobile troops [where by parachute, glider, helicopter, or heavy lift tactical transport aircraft] basically made these lightly armed troops fragile in combat. The same problems occurred every single time. The lack of heavy weapons supporting them, and the fragility of the air bridge in providing logistic supports. The near fatal mistake of the 1/7 Air Cavalry operations at landing zone X-Ray in the Ia Trang valley was not deploying Chinook helicopters in the first hour, when helicopters had a relatively safe landing window. Not to land tanks, but MUCH more mortar and MG ammunition. A few 50cals would not have gone astray either. Instead, the command decided that 16 light Heuys would provide the air bridge to land an albeit very under-strength 1/7, and as a consequence Moore did not have his "complete" battalion on the ground until over five hours had passed by. By that time, he had lost nearly two hundred wounded and dead, and had to be reinforced with one company and part of another from the 2/7. Of course, other units came by forced land march, but they too were also lightly armed with limited ammo. When the 1st Cav Division was conceived the army was determined not to repeat the mistakes in logistics and heavy weapons support problems of the 1944 Arnhem operation, which took 3 and a half days to get the 82, 101st [US], British 1st Airborne, and the Polish parachute brigade on the ground and effective. Indeed, the lift into X-Ray was completed far more quickly by comparison with WW2, but not quickly enough. The 1st US Cav division in Vietnam had well over 400 helicopters, so why the generals decided that the initial life and operations for days afterwords would only be supported by 16 Heuys is a recurrent mystery. [And three of those helos were damaged/ disabled, and unable to fly]. In fact, Moore's battalion lost their main LZ at X-ray for a considerable period of time, and were limited to a one or two ship LZ, which created botha resupply and reinforcement bottleneck, because even when it was under cavalry control, the enemy fire often made it impossible to use. Had the PAVN had tanks, even crappy obsolete tanks in the battle, the battalion would have been overwhelmed. As it was, the situation was only saved by massive artillery and air support. It was these improvements, compared to 1944, which saved the day.
@@stevemccarty6384 If we can call air-mobile troops as "elite forces" they are both a blessing and a curse. Of course, top tier units like SEALS, SAS, GROM etc, are expensive to train but punch well above their weight. So in the right missions, they are effective. But there is an "opportunity cost". The selection training etc of elite forces, dilutes the talent of ordinary line units. As far as i am aware, even when conscription is in force in WW2, and in the US and Uk forces, candidates for parachute were volunteers, and those who made the cut, were by and large, relatively exceptional soldiers, which their training enhanced. I am not saying that ordinary line units were hopeless losers, but one cannot help but wonder if those who qualified for stuff like parachute or ranger missions were fed back into normal line units, the performance of those units would have befitted from the additions?
Much is made of USA's air superiority, and it was formidable, but as an American, and a student of history, The RAF was, IMO, the true badass of WWII in Europe. It's not even debatable. Great Britain's steadfast will, is what wore down and broke the German war machine, enough so, that Barbarossa was doomed from the start. The Brits had already beaten much of the starch out of the Luftwaffe, and forced the Germans to expend vast resources that they couldn't easily get back. And let's not forget that without the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, the jewel of American fighter planes would never have achieved it's lofty status. Until that switch, the P-51 Mustang was pretty, "meh..." Even with the upgrade, the Supermarine Spitfire was the greatest fighter of WWII. Maybe some won't agree, but that's MY opinion. I am not downplaying the United States' role in beating back the Third Reich, but Great Britain, on their own, for a long time (until FDR finally got his head out of his ass) held back the Germans in a feat of sheer will, patriotism, and sacrifice, the likes of which we might not ever see again.
WITHOUT THE US BRITAIN WAS TOAST,THE GERMANS WOULD HAVE STARVED THEM TO DEATH. AMERICAN BLOOD ,TREASURE,AND INGENUITY WON THE WAR ! By 1945 Britain was spent,no money,no men,no resources. WITHOUT AMERICA EUROPE WAS EXTINCT!
You're not wrong, but you are incomplete. FDR was a leader equal in understanding and competence to Churchill. Furthermore he understood exactly how far he could take the vast U.S democracy along a contentious path. Insofar as he was capable, he provided critical support to the U.K. through Lend-Lease, and he instituted such preparations for American involvement as a military draft and approval of modern military innovations as strategic bomber designs and the magnificent M-1 rifle. FDR correctly labeled the USA as "The Arsenal of Democracy.", a pivotal insight. And as far as 'bad boys' go, you can't ignore the Russians. They had a government that persecuted them as much as led them. Their system of government was more stick than carrot. They suffered millions of casualties, but they carried the war back to the invaders and took great vengeance on them. The Allies were also helped by bad decision making on the part of Hitler. His invasion of Russia and declaration of war on the US assured the Axis would lose. The philosophical racism of the Germans and Japanese bent their regimes into such a repulsive behavior that they were more fighting with humanity than a few independent allies. BUT, your appreciation of the Brits is well placed and well written. Don't forget that the world has greatly changed in the last 80 years and Germany and Japan have transformed themselves into major Democratic and progressive forces. Our onetime allies Russia and China have not fared so well.
@@chestermarcol3831 There is no doubt without the USA THERE WOULD BE NO GREAT BRITAIN,THE RAF WAS ALMOST ON ITS LAST LEGS,THE U BOATS WOULD HAVE STARVED BRITAIN TO DEATH. THEY HAD NO CAPACITY TO STOP THEM,LET ALONE THE RESOURCES TO PRODUCE ANYTHING! ALMOST ALL THE MATERIAL OF A MODERN WAR WAS PRODUCED IN AMERICA,EVEN THOUGH WE WERE TOTALLY UN PREPARED FOR WAR. YOU FORGET ABOUT THE PACIFIC,THE US WAS FIGHTING A TWO FRONT WAR SUPPLYING SLL THE ALLIES WITH FOOD WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT! THE BRITS WERE TOTALLY OUTCLASSED BY THE JAPANESE FROM 41 till later in the war until there navy was equipped with US aircraft and supply ships and tankers! The Brits did fight ferociously,But were beat back on almost every front,and If HITLER WOULD HAVE WAITED 6 MONTHS TO A YEAR TO ATTACK RUSSIA THE OUTCOME OF THE BRITISH ISLES WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT STORY!
Glad you qualified your statement with air war "in Europe". Overall in WWII fighting both in Europe and the Pacific I think US air forces (USAAF, US Navy, US Marines) are the real bad asses of the entire war. And while the Brits certainly deserve credit for defending their country from the Blitz, it took the USAAF bombers to take the war to the Nazis. The RAF bombing effort by 1942 had been reduced to mostly ineffective night raids against Germany.
the ME323 was designed in a very short time and served well, when not exposed to enemy fighters. Moreover, what transport plane will not be a "lumbering death trap" without air superiority or at least fighter escort? What do you expect regarding a transport plane, doing air acrobatics in order not to appear as "lumbering"?
Also way over double the weight any of these gliders were able to carry, so I doubt anyone would have been daft enough to try and load one even if there had somehow been a prototype there.
yeah, Messerschmidt was probably relieved to get an excuse for the delay out of it and more time for the Junkers Jumo-004 development, though Hitler didn´t know that and his decision was still pretty dumb. In the end the decision to (have to) use lesser alloys due to the lack of nickel, cobalt, and molybdenum as originally intended doomed it all ( the original engine specifications probably didn´t have the vibration problems ? ). Though when looking into it one thing really surprised me, that the jet engines were - in man hours - only a fraction of the production time of a regular engine ( 375 hours to 1400 hours of the BMW 801 ). I always thought its the other way around. Though in the end having engines lasting at best 25 hours of running are useless ... even though you could have 3-4 new engines for one piston engine and X refurbished used jet engines with replaced turbine blades.
The A4 rocket, if armed with a chemical or radiological weapon, would have been devastating. One of the few smart things Hitler did at the end was to NOT use these type weapons on the rocket.
Wasn't up to Gitler. He had no such weapons to add. And the 'wonder' weapons weren't gamechangers. They were simply vicious killing devices to be used against civilians.
@@robertmatch6550 Wrong. They absolutely had stockpiles of chemical weapons including nerve toxins, and radiological includes a dirty bomb that they could have made easily.
@@dariozanze4929 I have heard that, don't know whether it's true though. One interesting wrinkle is the Germans were the only ones who had a usable nerve agent, Sarin, during the war, but they held back from using partly because they thought the Americans had it to. The misunderstanding was due to classified (but vaguely known to the Germans) US research into the same family of organophosphates, but what the Germans didn't know is that the US was researching those chemicals for use as insecticides in the sub-tropical war it was fighting in the Pacific.
I always wonder how to define "worst aircraft of WW2". I stick to airplanes that have been in operational use. Usually they still have some benefits, like the Gigant - which has seen quite some use and even inspired allied plane builders into building better cargo transports. Hoewever, I came across one plane, that was put into production and had no use what so ever. The Italian Breda Lince was meant as a bomber, but when armament, crew and bombs were loaded into the plane, it could not take off! They ended up as decoys around Italian airfields to attract enemy airplanes, thereby keeping them from attacking the better airplanes at the airfields. Side note: Italy built some of the best airplanes of WW2 as well.
My German teacher was a pilot of a ME-321 in North Africa and Russia. He was shot down only once, over Russia during a Black Sea mining operation, by American fighters escorting bombers hitting the Romanian oilfields at Ploiesti in 1944. He was lucky, being shot down again late in the war flying a fighter when Germany was desperate for bodies to put in fighter planes. He was captured by the Americans, and later emigrated to the U.S., living there the rest of his life, as far as I knew.
@@greggiles7309 Yes, I know, ….. and? Many paratroopers just had a pistol and it’s not like their canisters landed within 10ft. next to them. Many were lost or landed far off so they had to put up quite a fight with insufficient weapons and many died trying to reach their equipment.
I would not call the Gigant the worst plane or even a bad plane. After all, how would an unescorted unit of DC-3s fare against two flights of fighters? There was no cargo plane that could survive an attack by a large force of fighters. The original glider version was idiotic but the powered version could do its job quite well - its job being carrying freight and not taking on a large fighter force.
I'd be curious to know how a panzer 6 tank crashed through the floor of a glider being designed for operation Sealion. Since the panzerkampfwagen VI, also known as the Tiger 1, did not enter service until almost 2 years after Sealion was cancelled.
I've never heard anyone classify the He111 as a light bomber before. It was a heavy bomber in 1939 and although it could only really be considered a medium by mid war, it was still one of the largest and heaviest dedicated bombers in the Luftwaffe's inventory at the war's end.
A light bomber in the Luftwaffe would have been the Dornier 17. HE-111 was a medium bomber from the start. the germans didn't really built heavy bombers like the US or brits did.
@@steffent.6477 Even the Do17 was originally a fast medium bomber. The problem is there was never a solid, permanent definition of what was a heavy, medium or light bomber. The He111, like the Wellington and Whitley were all heavy bombers at the start of their careers. No-one in 1939 was looking at those and classifying them as a Medium bomber because 2 or 3 years into the future bigger bombers would exist. On the whole, there weren't any other bombers capable of carrying a significantly bigger bomb load over a realistic distance at that time, so they constituted their respective air force's "Heavy" bomber force at that point. Later aircraft would move those goal posts as the war progressed and the capabilities of aircraft increased at astonishing rates. For example, by 1945 some Fighters were taking off with heavier bomb loads than some of 1939's Heavy bombers.
@@steffent.6477And a Typhoon could deliver more than a Fairey Battle. Your point is? A 1942+ fighter could carry a heavier bomb-load than a 1936 bomber? Aviation advanced at an unprecedented rate between 1935-1945. Yes, late war FW-190F ground attack variants could carry more than a Do17. I suggest you look at what Hellcats and Corsairs were dropping over Japanese held territories and they were fighters...
@@steffent.6477 The HE-117 Griffin was a heavy bomber. It had a range of 3700 miles, and could carry 20,000 lbs of explosive ordnance. Range and payload are what makes a heavy bomber. It also carried the Fritz X, the first guided bomb
The "worst aircraft of WWII" were the ones that were least likely to survive a mission when they first went into combat. The Fairey Battle, the Boulton-Paul Defiant, PZL P.11 (Poland), the Bloch MB.150 (France), and two biplanes that appeared in 1939, the Fiat CR.42, and the Polikarpov I-153 would be some of my nominees. The Curtis P-36, Boeing P-26, Brewster Buffalo, and even the Douglas TBD Devastator were remarkably credible in 1941-1942.
One fact I'm missing here about the Gigant: they were somewhat underpowered, so the engines had to be run at almost full power for the main part of the flight. Leading to constant overheating. Even in Russia. In winter. At minus 40°C. That's a record in itself...
I have read an account by a SAAF pilot who was one of the squadron of P40s which encountered the Gigants over the Med trying to reach Tunisia. He wrote that it was the one and only time he ever felt sorry for the enemy so slow and vulnerable were they. That of course did not stop him shredding a couple of them with his machine guns of course and killing dozens - just doing his job after all!
5:30 Ében-Émael is currently a museum, and it's one of the most interesting WW2 sites i have ever visited, and i highly recomend visiting if you are ever near, some of the highlights include: The germans were unsure if the top of the fort (which is burried in a hill) was covered in landmines, so they were doubting if they should land their gliders directly on top of it. Untill the priest of the fort put up a football field on top of the fort's hill, this was to tire out the men so that they would not have the energy to commit sins while out in the towns (like having sex or gambling). German areal cameras disguised as passenger planes spotted this football field, confirming a lack of landmines, and the decision was made to land directly on top of the fort. It was one of the first battles where shaped explosive charges were used to bust open fortifications, they used it to blow up the spotting towers of the casemate guns, and used one indoors to collapse a casemate elevator from within (which can still be visited!) This was so secretive, that the soldiers were ordered to destroy their charges rather than letting them get lost. The day after the battle, they returned to blow up more of the fort, and recorded it to make a propaganda movie. During the siege, the explosions caused several chlorine containers used for masking the smell of latrines to rupture, causing a fairly harmless chlorine smell, however, since this was after WW1, and there were a decent amount of WW1 vets present, they thought they were under attack by gas, causing a panic.
Many of their training tanks were powered by wood gas (holz-gas). I've even seen pictures of a holz-gas kubelwagen. The idea was to save fuel for the front lines.
The Brewster Buffalo, the plane killed lots of pilots. It was unstable, unreliable, slow, and underarmed. Brewster had labor and serious management problems, so bad the government forced management out. The war Department appointed new people. The Navy ordered Buffalo production ended. The F4U Corsair was put into production. They went bankrupt after the war.
13:10 One look at that thing makes me think that it would easily break at the center. Also, it would need enormous rudders to go along with the enormous wingspan.
Changed circumstances can render an effective aircraft worthless. For instance, the JU88 was very effective against Poland and in France, where the Germans had air superiority. Up against the RAF, where Germany didn't have air superiority, they were slaughtered and quickly taken out of the fight.
A lot of times in WW2 the German approach to the design and manufacture of new weapons seemed like designing a new car and giving four different teams the task of designing one wheel each, without any of them being aware of the others' efforts.
The Panzer VI (Tiger I) was not in service until 1942, a year after the load trials for the Junkers, when a tank fell through the floor of the aircraft. Maybe the script should have read "... Panzer IV..."
WW2 US paratroopers jumped with all their gear attached to their person . Their heaviest items were contained in a bag that dangled below them by a cord and struck the ground a second or so before their body hit the ground . I don't know how the Britsish Paras jumped , but i think they used a similar system as the US Airborne .
Saw a guy that looked like vsauce and Simon whistler had a baby and I had to come here to see how my boy was doing Thanks for all the teaching over the years Simon. I wish you the very best !!!
Each, in their own way, very good aircraft. Used after their 'best before date' perhaps or designed for the previous war. I knew two gunners from 264 Sqdn. Don't forget, the Defiant and Battle were contemporaries of the Anson and Tiger Moth, both of which were considered for bombing roles if Sealion had happened in 1940. Imagine a sky filled with JU52s, Spitfires, Hurricanes, Gladiators and maybe even some Gauntlets. Defiants would have made short work of the JU52s. Whenever folk talk about 'best' and 'worst', they need to be considered against the 'options'. There is also the strange web of name changes to navigate. History tells us that the Lancaster was superb and the Manchester was a disaster. If the Lancaster had retained the Manchester name, we would now have the BoB Flight operating a Manchester and the whole world saying how great it is/was. The Botha was pretty bad. The Albacore was so 'good' that it was outlived by the Swordfish, the Tempest was troubled and did not have the advantage of as much development as the Spitfire due to the end of the war and the introduction of jets. The Natter is best described as 'interesting' and, in truth, the B17 was overhyped. Imagine if the Finns had Spitfires instead of Buffaloes. They would not have survived nearly as well in that theatre.
oh ffsake ... same old shit again ....... These where good designs when they where initially developed ..but the pace of developments during the war overtook them .....The Breda BA 88 was and is still quoted as the WORST aircraft in ww2 .... These things couldn't get off the ground fully loaded ... and spend their time being used as decoys on airfields ...
How was the Buffalo bad? The Finns loved it because they knew how to fly it and use its advantages against the Soviets, much like we viewed planes like the P-39 and P-40 as inadequate and outclassed, but yet somehow the Soviets used both effectively well after the US had written them off. The F4F Wildcat was even seen as useless in the very beginning of the Pacific war and we were scrambling for a better replacement until a certain pilot, LCDR John Thach developed the Thach Weave and developed effective tactics to overcome the Wildcat’s weaknesses and use its strengths to even the playing field and catch the Japanese off guard. It all boils down to the pilots learning the plane and not trying to use it in a role it’s not intended for. Some planes are outright bad, but the ones you listed, not necessarily so.
@@gonuts4donuts bear in mind though, Thatch hated the Wildcat. Also, IIRC the Finns apparently significantly modified their Buffaloes, stripping out anything they considered unnecessary in order to improve performance, like armour protection for the pilot. I'd also say it's a bit unfair on the P-40 to say it was considered inadequate. It was generally regarded as adequate, not great or inspiring by any stretch but available in numbers and able to do an acceptable job.
Well, as far as I have learned, the strategy was to have many competing companies so you'll have always the best and newest things. Worked fo a while with Fokker, Messerschmidt, Arado, Blohm und Voss, Dornier, Fieseler, Gotha, Heinkel, Henschel, Horten, Junkers, Klemm and Siebel only for the Airforce. But one might see problem. And the other sectors like small arms etc. were handled the same way.
The effect of the Wunderwaffen is often grossly underestimated and dismissed as futile. However, this is only by people who choose to only see them in the context of their effect against the enemy. However, their psychological and propaganda value in terms of their effect, or even the mere ‘promise’ of more and more devastating were to come, of these so-called Wunderwaffen was immense. This effect is well documented. The prospect that if they could just “hold on” long enough, Hitler would deliver on his promise of war winning weapons, even at the last gasp was a widely held hope. For many German civilians and soldiers this was a very real belief and one of the factors that kept them fighting for so long, even when by all objective analysis, the war had already been long lost! This was their great effect.
@@JohnnyWednesday Obviously its a function of the power of the engines, drag, lift, fuel weight etc but that doesn't tell me how you actually calculate it
@@EASYTIGER10As a rule of thumb, 1/4 of the total weight being payload for short range, reducing with increased range to perhaps 1/6, works reasonably well. Apologies for not having an actual answer to your question, but I hope the approximation is useful.
The worst of all? Hmmm...🤔 There was one twin-engined medium bomber/ground-attack plane that the Italians made. I think it was called the "Lince", and was made by Breda. The Italians themselves acknowledged how bad it was, especially their crews.
Not to dismiss the Me-323's general aggregate of flaws, I feel the worst plane in WWII had to be the Saro Lerwick, a truly scary flying boat patrol/rescue craft. Really; look it up.
Yep, completely unflyable on one engine and barely flyable on two, apparently. Having to do one’s multi-engine training in a Blackburn Botha can’t have been much fun either.
Sorry, but this can't be the worst... while the 323 was hilariously bad, it could be used for slow heavy transport in areas with air superiority, making it so that it did have a safe usage, however limited. The worst aircraft of WW2 should probably be attributed to the CANT Z.501 Gabbiano, the Italian seaplane that utilized a single engine mounted on a nacelle above the cockpit and had a wooden frame that was notoriously fragile and prone to breaking up. It was horrible if weather was bad, it was barely seaworthy despite being a seaplane, and a rough landing or just landing in rough waters could cause the engine nacelle to strike the main fuselage and slice into the cockpit, injuring or killing the pilots. - Seaplane that struggles in water - Falls apart just by existing - Engine falls on the cockpit while landing - Top speed similar to the ME323, topping off around 275 kph - Those built during WW2 were often rushed to completion and used worse materials, making all of the issues even worse
No complete aircraft survives, but the Luftwaffenmuseum der Bundeswehr (Air Force Museum of the German Federal Armed Forces) in Berlin has a Me 323 main wing spar in its collection.
@@Hillbilly001 I am perfectly aware that it was hardly mentioned, but it so commonly repeated an error that it needs to be stamped out. It is a piece of false history created to conceal the fact that the jet engines were simply not available. It is used to bolster the idea the German engineering was impressive, when in reality it was over reaching and under delivering.
@@johnculver2519 Der Fuhrer did want it as a fast ground attack aircraft however you are correct about the engines, but when the legend becomes fact print the legend. Just saying.... Cheers
Not only were these engines not available, the metallurgy that the Germans had in the 1940's meant that these engines had a time before overhaul of only 8 hours! Modern turbofan engines are inspected frequently, but they only need a hot section overhaul after about 5000 hours, and an entire overhaul is based upon wear and can range between 10,000 and 13,000 hours of use.
@@Hillbilly001 Or, just leave the legends as legends and print the facts. If a "fact" is dis-proven, remove it from the history except as a "This is what people used to believe about this".
yes actually, i feel like simon may have done a video on such cases before on one of the many channels, but there were multiple alternate power sources used for road vehicles during the first and second world wars including wood and coal gas, on both sides of the conflict.
Both the V1 & V2 might be seen as having killed more people that were forced to design, build and test it than it did when they were sent to kill the allied countries civilian populations, but Simon, if you were a person on the receiving end of them they did the job, not only did they kill thousands of innocent people they also instilled fear into those who survived or saw what they did, the warhead size on the V2 was irrelevant, the fact that nothing was capable of detecting or stopping the missile made it a “wonder” weapon.
The evacuation of Dunkirk is called a miracle because it was. Neither the British or Germans expected the level of troops returned too Britain. The operation was unprecedented. German troops were exhausted. There was reasons for the halt
@@Idahoguy10157 "Reason for the halt..." Yeah, the idea of the austrian painter to, maybe appease Britain and his exaggerated fear that tanks could get stuck. It was a profoundly st*pid decision
@@thepax2621 … obviously a mistake in retrospect. The Army asked for the pause. Hitler approved. After the war Nazi Generals blamed Hitler in their interviews and memoirs. Because they could.
@@thepax2621 The troops were exhausted. There was no chance of them being anything close to an effective fighting force without rest at that point. Sometimes calling a halt is the best option if you want to have a chance later on. And even the British didn't think they could pull off an evacuation like that.
Why said they didn't work as designed? Go, watch A Phantom Menace (Star Wars Ep 1) again: They perfectly unloaded light (droid) infantry on the battlefield, "Roger!, Roger!". 😁 I mean, the thing looks as if it inspired the Multi-Troop-Transport which the Trade Federation employed.
Speaking of Squarespace, "Gen Z job seekers should be willing to work for free, long hours, 'willing to do anything,' says Squarespace CMO". So, yeah, they can eat a bag of dongs.
Some concepts seem to prove out Albert Einstein’s theory on infinite possibilities. He felt the two things infinite were the universe and human stupidity. But he wasn’t positive about the universe. The Hughes Flying Boat another example of just because you can doesn’t mean you should. A big lumbering giant in a target rich environment. Trouble is the giant is the target.
One of the few things Erst Udet got right was the instability of the aircraft. When Udet tried make every aircraft a dive bomber, that's when he hit the wall. Total idiot.
The Worst Aircraft of WWII was not FIRTS transport plane to carry tanks, but soviet "attack" plane IL-2, a plane that could not dive, even though it was an attack aircraft, could barely stay in the air because it was over-armored, and had no defensive weapons or a radio station until the end of the war. Couldn't bomb anything accurately, because bombing in horizontal flight was not effective - the target could not be seen at the moment when the bombs had to be released. However, the aircraft guns could only be used from too far away, because when shooting closer, the plane had to be driven too steeply dive and it simply broke its wooden wings. 70% of the pilots did not survive the first 5 combat flights, and all IL-2s that were produced before and during the war were destroyed by the Germans or crashed by themselves due to production defects. It was literally flying brick - and Germans actually did give that nickname to Il-2. Why did the Russians produce such planes at all? Answer is trivially simple - they could be produced very cheaply and in large numbers. BTW, if you see those pictures of IL-2s flying over Berlin, piking (it's rudimentary photo manipulation at the time) and with the gunner behind the cockpit... those are Il-10s that started production in 1945 because the Il-2 was no longer available .
@@robertjohnson9971 yep. These were lterally kamikaze russian equivalent. Btw, T-34 also - swarmed German positions until most of the Germans were killed and the survivors fled. Prokhorovka tank battle, btw, was a German 88 FLAK marksmanship competition, which for some reason also involved 1 Tiger I and four T-IV tanks from the German side. The Russians lost almost 300 tanks that day in front of just one anti-tank ditch near the village of Prohorovka. The Germans won the Battle of Prokhorov, but lost the Kursk operation because the Americans landed in Italy and there were no more reserves in Germany.
I've got an idea. Why don't we pledge some money to have Simon speak even more quickly that he does now.. maybe by half? I resist watching his channels because of his presentation.
Italeri did both aircrafts ' models, a lot of yrs ago, and surely, when as a child saw them, they were the strangest things I'd ever seen, expecially the double HE111. Neverthless their propaganda, Germany had been plagued, pratically from the start of the war, by a chronical lack of strstegical materials, and their often irrealistic designs didn't helped, either.
The Buffalo was NOT a failure. The Finns had a kill ratio of 26:1 with them. Then again, they were Finns, and qould probably have gone up in hot air balloons, to throw Molotow cocktails at approaching enemy planes, and gotten a similar kill ratio...
@@norwegiangadgetman _I don't wanna go on about the Soviet Air Force, but for no reason there weren't German pilots with over 300 kills at the Eastern Front only _*_. . ._*
@@letoubib21 Actually, it is believed that most high-kill German pilots lied out of their teeth... 73 pilots with over 100 claimed kills each. That's a lot of planes. Also, while the planes they used during the early years were pretty much crap, the Russians did get better planes later, but the Finns stats stayed high. There were non-Finns who qualified for 'Ace' too, flying Buffalos. It may not have been the best fighter during the war, but it was far from the worst.
@@norwegiangadgetman _With Rudel, the infamous "tank buster", it has been proven today. that he exaggerated the number of his kills significally. With (German) fighter pilots, on the other hand, it was customary to only count kills confirmed by others---at least I thought so. But was that really true?_
@@letoubib21Allied pilots were prone to do the same, look at Boyington, the USMC still credits him with 26 victories while other more critical lists has him down to 22 victories as ground kills don’t count for one. The AVG didn’t credit him for 3 ground kills during a raid on an airfield. Boyington convinced the USMC to accept his count. Boyington had already quit/fired from the AVG on his way back home when he rejoined the USMC.
"Wrongheaded and frequently delusional micro managing..." We,as a civilization are fortunate that those 6 words no longer describe politicians and leaders anymore...they don't do they? Wait... Oh shit....
8:58 Panzer VI??? 12t is not a little over half the weight of a Tiger. Why are they putting a Tiger into it if the A/C can't carry half that weight??? Simon do you know what you are talking about or just reading a script?
Head to Squarespace.com for a free trial, and when you’re ready to launch, go to squarespace.com/BRAINFOOD to save 10% off on your first purchase of a website/domain using the code BRAINFOOD.
FFS HIRE RESEARCHERS THAT KNOW *SOMETHING... ANYTHING.....* ABOUT MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND TACTICS!
i feel like your whole staff is zoomers who just google shit the day you shoot these videos..
i love SIMON as a presenter but the subject matter is so poorly researched some times and the "conclusions" drawn by people who have never been within 1000k of a battlefield are wearing a bit thin...
between this "hot take" and the other poorly researched "errors" ..im about done wit this channel
its not a threat, i know you dont care about 1 sub...
but MAYBE my criticism will invoke change after im gone..
( highly doubt it, since in all your existence, and all your channels, youve not acknowledged fan criticism even once..)
TodayISeenThe Head of Pudding in a Tubes of You ThumbNail ! Is all well in Head of Pudding world of Ex Saab 96 SW V4 Pin up boy Simon the Whistler ?
I wouldn't pay for this rubbish - are people that stupid?
I am now 92 years old and I well remember the V! and the V2 rockets. The V2 rockets being much worrying at the time because you could not hear them coming. I say that I can recall going to the shops one morning at Eltham S.E. london UK. when I heard a double bang a strange noise then a very loud bang a couple of miles and a plume of smoke. The double bang meant nothing at the time but since of course it was the rocket going through the sound barrier. On another occasion I was on a newspaper round and something made me look ahead and there was a very big flash with burning bits going up in the air a few seconds later the shock wave hitch blew the front doors open or a row of terrace houses to my left and gaps in the windows. Fortunately it landed on the edge of Castlewoods at Eltham I believe killing three people living close by. Exciting day's for sure but i cannot ever feeling scared, just excepted it. Happy days!
That’s incredible. Thank you so much for sharing your experience! I love listening to or reading first hand experiences of ww2. My grandfather passed away 22 years ago, I was 8 years old but I very much remember hearing a few stories of his. I wish I had been older then so I could’ve asked questions .
Thank you so much
🫡
Good for you, mate. Thanks for sharing
I was told that up the road in Blackheath a V2 hit the Post Office but I think it was actually a V1.
Every time I listen to one of Simon's videos about the Nazis, I just imagine Wile E Coyote in the background, inventing all these insane contraptions.
Exactly the thought i had when the rockets failed
I had sound effects in my head
ACME invented the products the Coyote just used them. He actually had a whole live action movie made where he sued ACME but WB is not gonna release it and just use it for tax writeoffs sending it to the IRS vault.
They definitely had Looney Toons in mind
@@kultur-vulturhe definitely did invent SOME things. He bought a lot from acme yes but he ALSO invented some.
I bet they would all fit in nicely with the World Famous ACME Catalog though.
One of the reasons these projects were sometimes unreliable was because the slave labourers used in their construction and assembly, risked an even quicker death by committing acts of sabotage.
People tend to work better and be happier when they are free. This is one of the main reasons why socialism always fails.
What was that quote from the movie "Spartacus" about a free man gives up the good things of life, while the slave gives up the pain and bad things of life?
@@freesk8 While your first statement is 100% correct, your second is 100% false.
You seem to be conflating socialism with communism.
Socialism is doing just fine in those Scandinavian countries that Donald Trump said that we should be more like.
And socialism even has many proud examples in the United States.
You see, socialism is nothing more than citizens deciding together to use taxes for their own common good:
- Tax money used for public safety is socialism (provided it is used FOR the safety of the public, rather than AGAINST the public for the safety of the government)
- A military used for common defense is socialist
- building highways and roads for the free transport of goods and customers is socialist
- having basics of living met so that we are not slaves to our employers is socialist
or perhaps you've heard these things put in another form: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty"
NASA is a socialist effort at space-exploration, which Space-X, Blue Origin, Virigin Galactic and the like only exist BECAUSE of rather than NASA preventing their existence.
USPS is a socialist effort which led to the creation of FedEx and UPS, again, rather than preventing them.
Sheriff and Police Departments are socialist efforts which don't prevent private security companies from existing.
Communism, on the other hand, requires the government itself to own the businesses, preventing anyone from working for any company which isn't the government.
When people cannot realistically have a choice of who they can work for to make a living, they are effectively slaves and will be disincentivized from working productively.
And now that we're talking about it... does it seem like Americans these days have a lot of choice of how to make a living?
And do the largest businesses, the ones putting the smaller companies out of business without fear of government intervention anymore, do they seem to be very separate from the government to you?
Whether a communist country, where the government owns the businesses, or a fascist country, where the businesses own the government, the people are equally slaves.
It is only a democratic-socialist government balanced against a revenue-generating free-market (where "free" means that honest and hardworking small organizations are not allowed to be dominated by underhanded powerful ones, same as "free" individuals) in which individuals are incentivized to reinforce our interdependence on each other.
The most successful countries in the world are the social democratic Nordic countries. Free education, health care, child care, long paid vacations, equal opportunities for all, etc. Not like capitalistic countries like the USA.
@@VidarLund-k5qyeah, but Americans love possessions, and we have plenty. We’re willing to give up our health, longevity, and retirement to have more “stuff”.
Who could have ever forseen that allowing only 14 days to design a huge, huge glider would give problems?
I am shocked, shocked I say!
I know, Reich...I mean right.
Well, not that shocked.
Outflanking an enemy from the sky was a brilliant concept, but the basic problem with air-mobile troops [where by parachute, glider, helicopter, or heavy lift tactical transport aircraft] basically made these lightly armed troops fragile in combat. The same problems occurred every single time. The lack of heavy weapons supporting them, and the fragility of the air bridge in providing logistic supports.
The near fatal mistake of the 1/7 Air Cavalry operations at landing zone X-Ray in the Ia Trang valley was not deploying Chinook helicopters in the first hour, when helicopters had a relatively safe landing window. Not to land tanks, but MUCH more mortar and MG ammunition. A few 50cals would not have gone astray either. Instead, the command decided that 16 light Heuys would provide the air bridge to land an albeit very under-strength 1/7, and as a consequence Moore did not have his "complete" battalion on the ground until over five hours had passed by. By that time, he had lost nearly two hundred wounded and dead, and had to be reinforced with one company and part of another from the 2/7. Of course, other units came by forced land march, but they too were also lightly armed with limited ammo.
When the 1st Cav Division was conceived the army was determined not to repeat the mistakes in logistics and heavy weapons support problems of the 1944 Arnhem operation, which took 3 and a half days to get the 82, 101st [US], British 1st Airborne, and the Polish parachute brigade on the ground and effective. Indeed, the lift into X-Ray was completed far more quickly by comparison with WW2, but not quickly enough. The 1st US Cav division in Vietnam had well over 400 helicopters, so why the generals decided that the initial life and operations for days afterwords would only be supported by 16 Heuys is a recurrent mystery. [And three of those helos were damaged/ disabled, and unable to fly]. In fact, Moore's battalion lost their main LZ at X-ray for a considerable period of time, and were limited to a one or two ship LZ, which created botha resupply and reinforcement bottleneck, because even when it was under cavalry control, the enemy fire often made it impossible to use.
Had the PAVN had tanks, even crappy obsolete tanks in the battle, the battalion would have been overwhelmed.
As it was, the situation was only saved by massive artillery and air support. It was these improvements, compared to 1944, which saved the day.
Training to be a paratrooper is good training, but paratroops are not very effective in combat. They get little support and suffer heavy casualities.
@@stevemccarty6384 If we can call air-mobile troops as "elite forces" they are both a blessing and a curse. Of course, top tier units like SEALS, SAS, GROM etc, are expensive to train but punch well above their weight. So in the right missions, they are effective.
But there is an "opportunity cost". The selection training etc of elite forces, dilutes the talent of ordinary line units. As far as i am aware, even when conscription is in force in WW2, and in the US and Uk forces, candidates for parachute were volunteers, and those who made the cut, were by and large, relatively exceptional soldiers, which their training enhanced. I am not saying that ordinary line units were hopeless losers, but one cannot help but wonder if those who qualified for stuff like parachute or ranger missions were fed back into normal line units, the performance of those units would have befitted from the additions?
Much is made of USA's air superiority, and it was formidable, but as an American, and a student of history, The RAF was, IMO, the true badass of WWII in Europe. It's not even debatable. Great Britain's steadfast will, is what wore down and broke the German war machine, enough so, that Barbarossa was doomed from the start. The Brits had already beaten much of the starch out of the Luftwaffe, and forced the Germans to expend vast resources that they couldn't easily get back. And let's not forget that without the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, the jewel of American fighter planes would never have achieved it's lofty status. Until that switch, the P-51 Mustang was pretty, "meh..." Even with the upgrade, the Supermarine Spitfire was the greatest fighter of WWII. Maybe some won't agree, but that's MY opinion.
I am not downplaying the United States' role in beating back the Third Reich, but Great Britain, on their own, for a long time (until FDR finally got his head out of his ass) held back the Germans in a feat of sheer will, patriotism, and sacrifice, the likes of which we might not ever see again.
WITHOUT THE US BRITAIN WAS TOAST,THE GERMANS WOULD HAVE STARVED THEM TO DEATH. AMERICAN BLOOD ,TREASURE,AND INGENUITY WON THE WAR ! By 1945 Britain was spent,no money,no men,no resources. WITHOUT AMERICA EUROPE WAS EXTINCT!
You're not wrong, but you are incomplete. FDR was a leader equal in understanding and competence to Churchill. Furthermore he understood exactly how far he could take the vast U.S democracy along a contentious path. Insofar as he was capable, he provided critical support to the U.K. through Lend-Lease, and he instituted such preparations for American involvement as a military draft and approval of modern military innovations as strategic bomber designs and the magnificent M-1 rifle. FDR correctly labeled the USA as "The Arsenal of Democracy.", a pivotal insight.
And as far as 'bad boys' go, you can't ignore the Russians. They had a government that persecuted them as much as led them. Their system of government was more stick than carrot. They suffered millions of casualties, but they carried the war back to the invaders and took great vengeance on them.
The Allies were also helped by bad decision making on the part of Hitler. His invasion of Russia and declaration of war on the US assured the Axis would lose. The philosophical racism of the Germans and Japanese bent their regimes into such a repulsive behavior that they were more fighting with humanity than a few independent allies.
BUT, your appreciation of the Brits is well placed and well written.
Don't forget that the world has greatly changed in the last 80 years and Germany and Japan have transformed themselves into major Democratic and progressive forces. Our onetime allies Russia and China have not fared so well.
@@chestermarcol3831 There is no doubt without the USA THERE WOULD BE NO GREAT BRITAIN,THE RAF WAS ALMOST ON ITS LAST LEGS,THE U BOATS WOULD HAVE STARVED BRITAIN TO DEATH. THEY HAD NO CAPACITY TO STOP THEM,LET ALONE THE RESOURCES TO PRODUCE ANYTHING! ALMOST ALL THE MATERIAL OF A MODERN WAR WAS PRODUCED IN AMERICA,EVEN THOUGH WE WERE TOTALLY UN PREPARED FOR WAR. YOU FORGET ABOUT THE PACIFIC,THE US WAS FIGHTING A TWO FRONT WAR SUPPLYING SLL THE ALLIES WITH FOOD WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT! THE BRITS WERE TOTALLY OUTCLASSED BY THE JAPANESE FROM 41 till later in the war until there navy was equipped with US aircraft and supply ships and tankers! The Brits did fight ferociously,But were beat back on almost every front,and If HITLER WOULD HAVE WAITED 6 MONTHS TO A YEAR TO ATTACK RUSSIA THE OUTCOME OF THE BRITISH ISLES WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT STORY!
Of course, having the resources of the world's biggest empire kind of helped as well...
Glad you qualified your statement with air war "in Europe". Overall in WWII fighting both in Europe and the Pacific I think US air forces (USAAF, US Navy, US Marines) are the real bad asses of the entire war. And while the Brits certainly deserve credit for defending their country from the Blitz, it took the USAAF bombers to take the war to the Nazis. The RAF bombing effort by 1942 had been reduced to mostly ineffective night raids against Germany.
the ME323 was designed in a very short time and served well, when not exposed to enemy fighters.
Moreover, what transport plane will not be a "lumbering death trap" without air superiority or at least fighter escort?
What do you expect regarding a transport plane, doing air acrobatics in order not to appear as "lumbering"?
You mean it is too much to ask for Me323 pull an Immelmann?
@@Taistelukalkkuna nowadays it would be part of the technical specification maybe, but then, it was ok if it would be able to carry some cargo 😉
@@Taistelukalkkuna😂
Yeah a C-5 or a C-117 doing a Split 'S' for sure. Maybe a C-130 as they seem to be capable of anything.
@@Taistelukalkkunasomeone attempt to do the Immelmann manneuver with the B 17 or B 24 - or even a single barrel roll ?
Panzer VI eh? That would be impressive considering they didn't start production until August of 1942. Methinks they meant a Pz IV :)
P VI was the Tiger and didn't appear until late 42 so I bet they did mean the IV yeah.
Also way over double the weight any of these gliders were able to carry, so I doubt anyone would have been daft enough to try and load one even if there had somehow been a prototype there.
Hitlers interference with the Me262 has been a bit exaggerated; the biggest delay in the program was engine development.
yeah, Messerschmidt was probably relieved to get an excuse for the delay out of it and more time for the Junkers Jumo-004 development, though Hitler didn´t know that and his decision was still pretty dumb. In the end the decision to (have to) use lesser alloys due to the lack of nickel, cobalt, and molybdenum as originally intended doomed it all ( the original engine specifications probably didn´t have the vibration problems ? ). Though when looking into it one thing really surprised me, that the jet engines were - in man hours - only a fraction of the production time of a regular engine ( 375 hours to 1400 hours of the BMW 801 ). I always thought its the other way around. Though in the end having engines lasting at best 25 hours of running are useless ... even though you could have 3-4 new engines for one piston engine and X refurbished used jet engines with replaced turbine blades.
not really, hitler's obsession with bombing was a massive problem.
"Flying Deathtrap" : the F-104 was developed after WW2
The video never mentioned the F-104. Watch the video before commenting nob.
@@Hillbilly001 its a joke
@@OV-10 Not a very good one in my opinion.
@@OV-10 Is it? Jokes are meant to be funny.
@@Hillbilly001 The Flying Deathtrap was one of the nicknames for the F-104, along with the Coffin Nail, Lawn Dart, Widowmaker and other similar names.
The A4 rocket, if armed with a chemical or radiological weapon, would have been devastating. One of the few smart things Hitler did at the end was to NOT use these type weapons on the rocket.
Wasn't up to Gitler. He had no such weapons to add. And the 'wonder' weapons weren't gamechangers. They were simply vicious killing devices to be used against civilians.
@@robertmatch6550 Wrong. They absolutely had stockpiles of chemical weapons including nerve toxins, and radiological includes a dirty bomb that they could have made easily.
@@robertmatch6550 Didn't had such weapons to add because Hitler was very much against chemical weapons since he was a victim of those in WW1.
if. always if.
@@dariozanze4929 I have heard that, don't know whether it's true though.
One interesting wrinkle is the Germans were the only ones who had a usable nerve agent, Sarin, during the war, but they held back from using partly because they thought the Americans had it to. The misunderstanding was due to classified (but vaguely known to the Germans) US research into the same family of organophosphates, but what the Germans didn't know is that the US was researching those chemicals for use as insecticides in the sub-tropical war it was fighting in the Pacific.
I always wonder how to define "worst aircraft of WW2". I stick to airplanes that have been in operational use. Usually they still have some benefits, like the Gigant - which has seen quite some use and even inspired allied plane builders into building better cargo transports. Hoewever, I came across one plane, that was put into production and had no use what so ever. The Italian Breda Lince was meant as a bomber, but when armament, crew and bombs were loaded into the plane, it could not take off! They ended up as decoys around Italian airfields to attract enemy airplanes, thereby keeping them from attacking the better airplanes at the airfields. Side note: Italy built some of the best airplanes of WW2 as well.
My German teacher was a pilot of a ME-321 in North Africa and Russia. He was shot down only once, over Russia during a Black Sea mining operation, by American fighters escorting bombers hitting the Romanian oilfields at Ploiesti in 1944. He was lucky, being shot down again late in the war flying a fighter when Germany was desperate for bodies to put in fighter planes. He was captured by the Americans, and later emigrated to the U.S., living there the rest of his life, as far as I knew.
Original paratroopers got dropped with one small gun and had to pick up weapons along the way? Sounds like Fortnite or something... 😂
they were allowed to chose how to do it.
I heard that this was done in Crete. Hence the large amount of casualties.
@@fatdad64able Their gear was in cannisters,
@@greggiles7309 Yes, I know, ….. and? Many paratroopers just had a pistol and it’s not like their canisters landed within 10ft. next to them. Many were lost or landed far off so they had to put up quite a fight with insufficient weapons and many died trying to reach their equipment.
@@fatdad64able Read book about Captain Charles Upham, Mark of the Lion,
I would not call the Gigant the worst plane or even a bad plane. After all, how would an unescorted unit of DC-3s fare against two flights of fighters? There was no cargo plane that could survive an attack by a large force of fighters. The original glider version was idiotic but the powered version could do its job quite well - its job being carrying freight and not taking on a large fighter force.
I’m not surprised that a panzer 6 fell through the floor as a Tiger 1 weighed well over 50 tons.🤔🤔🤔
What? The Tiger I is a Panzer VI or “6”
I'd be curious to know how a panzer 6 tank crashed through the floor of a glider being designed for operation Sealion.
Since the panzerkampfwagen VI, also known as the Tiger 1, did not enter service until almost 2 years after Sealion was cancelled.
It was probably a Panzer IV.
Happy that you concluded with the contributing factors that inspired the three aircraft mentioned.
Really good video. Thank you.
I've never heard anyone classify the He111 as a light bomber before. It was a heavy bomber in 1939 and although it could only really be considered a medium by mid war, it was still one of the largest and heaviest dedicated bombers in the Luftwaffe's inventory at the war's end.
A light bomber in the Luftwaffe would have been the Dornier 17. HE-111 was a medium bomber from the start. the germans didn't really built heavy bombers like the US or brits did.
@@steffent.6477 Even the Do17 was originally a fast medium bomber. The problem is there was never a solid, permanent definition of what was a heavy, medium or light bomber.
The He111, like the Wellington and Whitley were all heavy bombers at the start of their careers. No-one in 1939 was looking at those and classifying them as a Medium bomber because 2 or 3 years into the future bigger bombers would exist. On the whole, there weren't any other bombers capable of carrying a significantly bigger bomb load over a realistic distance at that time, so they constituted their respective air force's "Heavy" bomber force at that point.
Later aircraft would move those goal posts as the war progressed and the capabilities of aircraft increased at astonishing rates. For example, by 1945 some Fighters were taking off with heavier bomb loads than some of 1939's Heavy bombers.
@@simonross9577 Yeah, FW190 could carry much more than Do17^^
@@steffent.6477And a Typhoon could deliver more than a Fairey Battle. Your point is? A 1942+ fighter could carry a heavier bomb-load than a 1936 bomber?
Aviation advanced at an unprecedented rate between 1935-1945.
Yes, late war FW-190F ground attack variants could carry more than a Do17. I suggest you look at what Hellcats and Corsairs were dropping over Japanese held territories and they were fighters...
@@steffent.6477 The HE-117 Griffin was a heavy bomber. It had a range of 3700 miles, and could carry 20,000 lbs of explosive ordnance. Range and payload are what makes a heavy bomber. It also carried the Fritz X, the first guided bomb
The "worst aircraft of WWII" were the ones that were least likely to survive a mission when they first went into combat. The Fairey Battle, the Boulton-Paul Defiant, PZL P.11 (Poland), the Bloch MB.150 (France), and two biplanes that appeared in 1939, the Fiat CR.42, and the Polikarpov I-153 would be some of my nominees. The Curtis P-36, Boeing P-26, Brewster Buffalo, and even the Douglas TBD Devastator were remarkably credible in 1941-1942.
One fact I'm missing here about the Gigant: they were somewhat underpowered, so the engines had to be run at almost full power for the main part of the flight. Leading to constant overheating. Even in Russia. In winter. At minus 40°C. That's a record in itself...
06:34 - 1 of the UK's 🇬🇧 proudest moments!
The battle of britain! 😊
Why does the Ju322 picture have the designation ‘Fw 190’ caption in the top right corner?
I have read an account by a SAAF pilot who was one of the squadron of P40s which encountered the Gigants over the Med trying to reach Tunisia. He wrote that it was the one and only time he ever felt sorry for the enemy so slow and vulnerable were they. That of course did not stop him shredding a couple of them with his machine guns of course and killing dozens - just doing his job after all!
5:30 Ében-Émael is currently a museum, and it's one of the most interesting WW2 sites i have ever visited, and i highly recomend visiting if you are ever near, some of the highlights include:
The germans were unsure if the top of the fort (which is burried in a hill) was covered in landmines, so they were doubting if they should land their gliders directly on top of it.
Untill the priest of the fort put up a football field on top of the fort's hill, this was to tire out the men so that they would not have the energy to commit sins while out in the towns (like having sex or gambling).
German areal cameras disguised as passenger planes spotted this football field, confirming a lack of landmines, and the decision was made to land directly on top of the fort.
It was one of the first battles where shaped explosive charges were used to bust open fortifications, they used it to blow up the spotting towers of the casemate guns, and used one indoors to collapse a casemate elevator from within (which can still be visited!)
This was so secretive, that the soldiers were ordered to destroy their charges rather than letting them get lost.
The day after the battle, they returned to blow up more of the fort, and recorded it to make a propaganda movie.
During the siege, the explosions caused several chlorine containers used for masking the smell of latrines to rupture, causing a fairly harmless chlorine smell, however, since this was after WW1, and there were a decent amount of WW1 vets present, they thought they were under attack by gas, causing a panic.
I would like to commend you for always appearing in the splash icon of your videos. It is very useful.
10:41 "used as fuel for wood powered vehicles" 👀 💻✅
Yes. Vehicles powered by wood gas were a thing.
Pretty sure Simon did a video on it but I don't recall which channel.. might be this one actually.
Very common in WW2. Fleets of wood-gas taxis and buses in Paris during the war. th-cam.com/video/cPzgCYpon48/w-d-xo.html
Many of their training tanks were powered by wood gas (holz-gas).
I've even seen pictures of a holz-gas kubelwagen.
The idea was to save fuel for the front lines.
The Brewster Buffalo, the plane killed lots of pilots. It was unstable, unreliable, slow, and underarmed. Brewster had labor and serious management problems, so bad the government forced management out. The war Department appointed new people. The Navy ordered Buffalo production ended. The F4U Corsair was put into production. They went bankrupt after the war.
The Buffalo worked out poorly for the US, but the Finnish air force had substantial success using it against the Soviets.
Most of the F4 Corsairs produced by Brewster were reputed unfit for service, either .
Finnish Brewsters had best k/d ratio on WWII....
32:1
Not a single other plane comes even near .
As Gigant is a German word. The initial "g" is pronounced as a hard g. The same as you pronounce Gewehr.
11:30 Clamshell doors in the hose? Pretty sure that should be nose.
13:10 One look at that thing makes me think that it would easily break at the center. Also, it would need enormous rudders to go along with the enormous wingspan.
Changed circumstances can render an effective aircraft worthless.
For instance, the JU88 was very effective against Poland and in France, where the Germans had air superiority.
Up against the RAF, where Germany didn't have air superiority, they were slaughtered and quickly taken out of the fight.
I think you mean the Ju87 Stuka, not the Ju88
The Ju88 was avery successfull and versatile design
The way simon pronounced "Fallschirmjäger" is kinda weird and funny
That's because it's the _only_ German word that he pronounces correctly.
@@TheOsfania An A with an umlaut should be pronounced like "ay". Simon has obviously been misadvised as to the pronunciation
@@alexlawrence293 Indeed, one would think this should be more obvious as it seems that everyone knows how to pronounce jägermeister ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
'Barbarossa' Lol
@@TheOsfania*almost correctly
A lot of times in WW2 the German approach to the design and manufacture of new weapons seemed like designing a new car and giving four different teams the task of designing one wheel each, without any of them being aware of the others' efforts.
Why then could they withstand the enormous superiority of the allies so long?
The Panzer VI (Tiger I) was not in service until 1942, a year after the load trials for the Junkers, when a tank fell through the floor of the aircraft. Maybe the script should have read "... Panzer IV..."
WW2 US paratroopers jumped with all their gear attached to their person . Their heaviest items were contained in a bag that dangled below them by a cord and struck the ground a second or so before their body hit the ground . I don't know how the Britsish Paras jumped , but i think they used a similar system as the US Airborne .
Saw a guy that looked like vsauce and Simon whistler had a baby and I had to come here to see how my boy was doing
Thanks for all the teaching over the years Simon. I wish you the very best !!!
Whenever someone asks "why would the Nazis build this?" the answer is always Meth, copious amounts of Meth.
There are a LOT of aircraft ahead of the Me 323 in the queue for worst aircraft of WW2. Boulton-Paul Defiant? Fairey Battle? Brewster Buffalo?
Each, in their own way, very good aircraft. Used after their 'best before date' perhaps or designed for the previous war. I knew two gunners from 264 Sqdn. Don't forget, the Defiant and Battle were contemporaries of the Anson and Tiger Moth, both of which were considered for bombing roles if Sealion had happened in 1940. Imagine a sky filled with JU52s, Spitfires, Hurricanes, Gladiators and maybe even some Gauntlets. Defiants would have made short work of the JU52s.
Whenever folk talk about 'best' and 'worst', they need to be considered against the 'options'. There is also the strange web of name changes to navigate. History tells us that the Lancaster was superb and the Manchester was a disaster. If the Lancaster had retained the Manchester name, we would now have the BoB Flight operating a Manchester and the whole world saying how great it is/was.
The Botha was pretty bad. The Albacore was so 'good' that it was outlived by the Swordfish, the Tempest was troubled and did not have the advantage of as much development as the Spitfire due to the end of the war and the introduction of jets. The Natter is best described as 'interesting' and, in truth, the B17 was overhyped.
Imagine if the Finns had Spitfires instead of Buffaloes. They would not have survived nearly as well in that theatre.
oh ffsake ... same old shit again ....... These where good designs when they where initially developed ..but the pace of developments during the war overtook them .....The Breda BA 88 was and is still quoted as the WORST aircraft in ww2 .... These things couldn't get off the ground fully loaded ... and spend their time being used as decoys on airfields ...
How was the Buffalo bad? The Finns loved it because they knew how to fly it and use its advantages against the Soviets, much like we viewed planes like the P-39 and P-40 as inadequate and outclassed, but yet somehow the Soviets used both effectively well after the US had written them off.
The F4F Wildcat was even seen as useless in the very beginning of the Pacific war and we were scrambling for a better replacement until a certain pilot, LCDR John Thach developed the Thach Weave and developed effective tactics to overcome the Wildcat’s weaknesses and use its strengths to even the playing field and catch the Japanese off guard.
It all boils down to the pilots learning the plane and not trying to use it in a role it’s not intended for. Some planes are outright bad, but the ones you listed, not necessarily so.
Breda BA88 LINCE .. Need I say more ..
@@gonuts4donuts bear in mind though, Thatch hated the Wildcat.
Also, IIRC the Finns apparently significantly modified their Buffaloes, stripping out anything they considered unnecessary in order to improve performance, like armour protection for the pilot.
I'd also say it's a bit unfair on the P-40 to say it was considered inadequate. It was generally regarded as adequate, not great or inspiring by any stretch but available in numbers and able to do an acceptable job.
Well, as far as I have learned, the strategy was to have many competing companies so you'll have always the best and newest things. Worked fo a while with Fokker, Messerschmidt, Arado, Blohm und Voss, Dornier, Fieseler, Gotha, Heinkel, Henschel, Horten, Junkers, Klemm and Siebel only for the Airforce. But one might see problem. And the other sectors like small arms etc. were handled the same way.
Fokker is a Dutch company, not German. You may be thinking of Focke-Wulf.
The Jäger in Jallschirmjäger is pronounced like Chuck Yaeger's last name. Umlauts have a function, you knöw ;-)
This fella is *really* bad at pronouncing German words.
Sure they do, it's to make mëtäl bänds' names look more bädäss. \m/
The effect of the Wunderwaffen is often grossly underestimated and dismissed as futile. However, this is only by people who choose to only see them in the context of their effect against the enemy.
However, their psychological and propaganda value in terms of their effect, or even the mere ‘promise’ of more and more devastating were to come, of these so-called Wunderwaffen was immense. This effect is well documented. The prospect that if they could just “hold on” long enough, Hitler would deliver on his promise of war winning weapons, even at the last gasp was a widely held hope.
For many German civilians and soldiers this was a very real belief and one of the factors that kept them fighting for so long, even when by all objective analysis, the war had already been long lost! This was their great effect.
How do you calculate how many tonnes a given aircraft design can carry?
Are you being serious?
@@JohnnyWednesday Yes, it's not the sort of question you ask for laughs
@@JohnnyWednesday Obviously its a function of the power of the engines, drag, lift, fuel weight etc but that doesn't tell me how you actually calculate it
Lift vs drag
@@EASYTIGER10As a rule of thumb, 1/4 of the total weight being payload for short range, reducing with increased range to perhaps 1/6, works reasonably well. Apologies for not having an actual answer to your question, but I hope the approximation is useful.
WOT! No mention of the `Herky Bird` (C130) in the Outro?
I kinda like the clamshell doors on the me 321. They look interesting
Yeah, I think you meant to say Panzer IV instead of VI. 😏
The worst of all? Hmmm...🤔 There was one twin-engined medium bomber/ground-attack plane that the Italians made. I think it was called the "Lince", and was made by Breda.
The Italians themselves acknowledged how bad it was, especially their crews.
Yet another design that was ahead of its time. Today, such types of cargo planes are common, such as the C-130.
Not to dismiss the Me-323's general aggregate of flaws, I feel the worst plane in WWII had to be the Saro Lerwick, a truly scary flying boat patrol/rescue craft. Really; look it up.
Yep, completely unflyable on one engine and barely flyable on two, apparently. Having to do one’s multi-engine training in a Blackburn Botha can’t have been much fun either.
@@GorgeDawes Unstable in the air as well as in the water. If it had had amphibious gear, I think it would have been a triple threat of failure.
Sorry, but this can't be the worst... while the 323 was hilariously bad, it could be used for slow heavy transport in areas with air superiority, making it so that it did have a safe usage, however limited. The worst aircraft of WW2 should probably be attributed to the CANT Z.501 Gabbiano, the Italian seaplane that utilized a single engine mounted on a nacelle above the cockpit and had a wooden frame that was notoriously fragile and prone to breaking up. It was horrible if weather was bad, it was barely seaworthy despite being a seaplane, and a rough landing or just landing in rough waters could cause the engine nacelle to strike the main fuselage and slice into the cockpit, injuring or killing the pilots.
- Seaplane that struggles in water
- Falls apart just by existing
- Engine falls on the cockpit while landing
- Top speed similar to the ME323, topping off around 275 kph
- Those built during WW2 were often rushed to completion and used worse materials, making all of the issues even worse
Slow day at work and I needed a good laugh 😅
No complete aircraft survives, but the Luftwaffenmuseum der Bundeswehr (Air Force Museum of the German Federal Armed Forces) in Berlin has a Me 323 main wing spar in its collection.
Im kind of shocked that Counsel agreed to come to Chicago only to constantly lose his team to Jed Hoyers horrid whims over and over again.
These were pretty bad, I'd argue the Japanese had some planes much more suitable as "flying death traps" though
At least the Ocha was. It didn't even have a landing gear so any pilot was doomed to die.
argue how you like, dissolving pilots is pretty bad.
@@ngauruhoezodiac3143 櫻花 Ohka. It means cherry blossom. The Japanese called them "馬鹿" Baka. It means stupid...
The Me 163 may not have killed that many of its pilots, but he permanently injured many. The hard landing could badly injured the backs of the pilots.
Watching that thing take off evokes pictures of elephants doing ballet 😅
Only weapon to kill more of the people who made it than the enemies it was used against? Arsenic bronze has entered the chat...
"...the cockpit was off set to port to free up space in the cargo bay..." You mean like the YT-1300?
Havnt seen it yet. Should be the Me163 or HE177. Here we go
Not the Me262 bomber myth again! That is totally disproven.
The Me262 was barely mentioned. Watch the video nob.
@@Hillbilly001 I am perfectly aware that it was hardly mentioned, but it so commonly repeated an error that it needs to be stamped out. It is a piece of false history created to conceal the fact that the jet engines were simply not available. It is used to bolster the idea the German engineering was impressive, when in reality it was over reaching and under delivering.
@@johnculver2519 Der Fuhrer did want it as a fast ground attack aircraft however you are correct about the engines, but when the legend becomes fact print the legend. Just saying.... Cheers
Not only were these engines not available, the metallurgy that the Germans had in the 1940's meant that these engines had a time before overhaul of only 8 hours! Modern turbofan engines are inspected frequently, but they only need a hot section overhaul after about 5000 hours, and an entire overhaul is based upon wear and can range between 10,000 and 13,000 hours of use.
@@Hillbilly001 Or, just leave the legends as legends and print the facts.
If a "fact" is dis-proven, remove it from the history except as a "This is what people used to believe about this".
Good video, but wtf is the thumbnail lol? Is that the sandstorm from the Mummy?
10:50. Wood powered vehicles?
yes actually, i feel like simon may have done a video on such cases before on one of the many channels, but there were multiple alternate power sources used for road vehicles during the first and second world wars including wood and coal gas, on both sides of the conflict.
Not that big of a surprise. There were designs for an interceptor powered by coal.
Wood gas generators were fitted to many road vehicles.
_That's called a wood gasifier(/carburator) `. . .*_
_That's called a wood gasifier/carburator (AE) _*_. . ._*
A kid from my block in Queens, NY grew up to become a C5 pilot. I'm so proud of him!
The world was introduced to the cruise missile concept by the V1.
Both the V1 & V2 might be seen as having killed more people that were forced to design, build and test it than it did when they were sent to kill the allied countries civilian populations, but Simon, if you were a person on the receiving end of them they did the job, not only did they kill thousands of innocent people they also instilled fear into those who survived or saw what they did, the warhead size on the V2 was irrelevant, the fact that nothing was capable of detecting or stopping the missile made it a “wonder” weapon.
in other words, a failure.
Today, you found out that the plural of "Aircraft" is "Aircraft." You are welcome.
LOTS of dangerous planes in WW2- for instance the HE-177 was so horrible they didn’t even bother to keep one for a museum…😁
Three towing planes?! That’s amazing when you think about it.
I wonder how they rigged it so they wouldn’t be pulled into each other while towing?
Very carefully- that part alone is incredible dangerous and enough reason to try something else alone.
This the type of creation i try to make in games that ends up failing immediately
today i found out Thomas Lockley made the entire Yasuke Samurai myth up
time for a follow up vid TIFO
"Operation Sealion" was nuts, as was allowing the evacuation of Dunkirk. The moustache guy was shock-full of "great" ideas like that 🤷🏻♀️
Everything seems nuts during a war. Smaller less conventional moves are easily countered.
The evacuation of Dunkirk is called a miracle because it was. Neither the British or Germans expected the level of troops returned too Britain. The operation was unprecedented. German troops were exhausted. There was reasons for the halt
@@Idahoguy10157 "Reason for the halt..."
Yeah, the idea of the austrian painter to, maybe appease Britain and his exaggerated fear that tanks could get stuck. It was a profoundly st*pid decision
@@thepax2621 … obviously a mistake in retrospect. The Army asked for the pause. Hitler approved. After the war Nazi Generals blamed Hitler in their interviews and memoirs. Because they could.
@@thepax2621 The troops were exhausted. There was no chance of them being anything close to an effective fighting force without rest at that point.
Sometimes calling a halt is the best option if you want to have a chance later on. And even the British didn't think they could pull off an evacuation like that.
I still want a simulator where you can fly the beast.
Il-2 1946 with the BAT modpack.
@@dfury4874 Have they added cockpit view? I remember you could fly these but only with external view.
@@commanderjameson2708 Yep. Just tested and it does have a cockpit and cockpit view.
Is this the real Simon? 🎉
No. He retired. This is AI Factboi.
Why said they didn't work as designed? Go, watch A Phantom Menace (Star Wars Ep 1) again: They perfectly unloaded light (droid) infantry on the battlefield, "Roger!, Roger!". 😁 I mean, the thing looks as if it inspired the Multi-Troop-Transport which the Trade Federation employed.
I saw the mummy in the sandstorm face and didnt realize it was a today i found out ep. that it was into the shadows or something.
‘Aircraft’ is plural and singular. M
Speaking of Squarespace, "Gen Z job seekers should be willing to work for free, long hours, 'willing to do anything,' says Squarespace CMO". So, yeah, they can eat a bag of dongs.
"No one wants to work anymore".
Right?
"Come work for us. It's 80 hours a week. No pay, but you get experience."
"No thanks."
"People just don't want to work anymore!"
it is a toss up between the Halifax and the Lancaster.
ME262 was not the 1st operational jet fighter , the Gloucester Meteor was .
Just saying ...
NO
@paulstefanovich5217 provide evidence ...
Nope, and it's Gloster not Gloucester. The Me-262 entered service in April 1944, the Meteor entered service in July 1944.
You mean Operational TEST unit Paul , not actually in service ...
Sorry , Robert .
I guessed wrong. With the title of this episode i assumed it was the comet rocket jet.
Some concepts seem to prove out Albert Einstein’s theory on infinite possibilities.
He felt the two things infinite were the universe and human stupidity.
But he wasn’t positive about the universe.
The
Hughes Flying Boat another example of just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
A big lumbering giant in a target rich environment. Trouble is the giant is the target.
1:28 No Squares were hurt during this ad.
A panzer 6 is a tiger tank, 54 tons I don't think that's quite right 🤔
One of the few things Erst Udet got right was the instability of the aircraft. When Udet tried make every aircraft a dive bomber, that's when he hit the wall. Total idiot.
The British were defending Crete, not "Createans"
The Worst Aircraft of WWII was not FIRTS transport plane to carry tanks, but soviet "attack" plane IL-2, a plane that could not dive, even though it was an attack aircraft, could barely stay in the air because it was over-armored, and had no defensive weapons or a radio station until the end of the war. Couldn't bomb anything accurately, because bombing in horizontal flight was not effective - the target could not be seen at the moment when the bombs had to be released. However, the aircraft guns could only be used from too far away, because when shooting closer, the plane had to be driven too steeply dive and it simply broke its wooden wings.
70% of the pilots did not survive the first 5 combat flights, and all IL-2s that were produced before and during the war were destroyed by the Germans or crashed by themselves due to production defects.
It was literally flying brick - and Germans actually did give that nickname to Il-2.
Why did the Russians produce such planes at all? Answer is trivially simple - they could be produced very cheaply and in large numbers.
BTW, if you see those pictures of IL-2s flying over Berlin, piking (it's rudimentary photo manipulation at the time) and with the gunner behind the cockpit... those are Il-10s that started production in 1945 because the Il-2 was no longer available .
But the Soviets built 37000 of them, and as Uncle Joe said, quantity has a quality of its own.
@@robertjohnson9971 yep. These were lterally kamikaze russian equivalent.
Btw, T-34 also - swarmed German positions until most of the Germans were killed and the survivors fled.
Prokhorovka tank battle, btw, was a German 88 FLAK marksmanship competition, which for some reason also involved 1 Tiger I and four T-IV tanks from the German side. The Russians lost almost 300 tanks that day in front of just one anti-tank ditch near the village of Prohorovka. The Germans won the Battle of Prokhorov, but lost the Kursk operation because the Americans landed in Italy and there were no more reserves in Germany.
Wut‽ they need 3 planes to tow this monster! Doesnt look very effective and easy to control
I've got an idea. Why don't we pledge some money to have Simon speak even more quickly that he does now.. maybe by half?
I resist watching his channels because of his presentation.
Half more quickly?
Itll never be not grear hearing Simon butcher the german pronounciations
1.46 Some serious leather long coats . Which is about the high point of Nazism . Genocide being the low point and will never be forgotten .
I have no idea what a Fullschmjager is. 😆
Italeri did both aircrafts ' models, a lot of yrs ago, and surely, when as a child saw them, they were the strangest things I'd ever seen, expecially the double HE111.
Neverthless their propaganda, Germany had been plagued, pratically from the start of the war, by a chronical lack of strstegical materials, and their often irrealistic designs didn't helped, either.
_If the Me 323 is supposed to have been the worst aircraft of WW2, what the heck was the Brewster Buffalo?!_
The Buffalo was NOT a failure. The Finns had a kill ratio of 26:1 with them. Then again, they were Finns, and qould probably have gone up in hot air balloons, to throw Molotow cocktails at approaching enemy planes, and gotten a similar kill ratio...
@@norwegiangadgetman
_I don't wanna go on about the Soviet Air Force, but for no reason there weren't German pilots with over 300 kills at the Eastern Front only _*_. . ._*
@@letoubib21 Actually, it is believed that most high-kill German pilots lied out of their teeth... 73 pilots with over 100 claimed kills each. That's a lot of planes.
Also, while the planes they used during the early years were pretty much crap, the Russians did get better planes later, but the Finns stats stayed high.
There were non-Finns who qualified for 'Ace' too, flying Buffalos.
It may not have been the best fighter during the war, but it was far from the worst.
@@norwegiangadgetman
_With Rudel, the infamous "tank buster", it has been proven today. that he exaggerated the number of his kills significally. With (German) fighter pilots, on the other hand, it was customary to only count kills confirmed by others---at least I thought so. But was that really true?_
@@letoubib21Allied pilots were prone to do the same, look at Boyington, the USMC still credits him with 26 victories while other more critical lists has him down to 22 victories as ground kills don’t count for one. The AVG didn’t credit him for 3 ground kills during a raid on an airfield. Boyington convinced the USMC to accept his count. Boyington had already quit/fired from the AVG on his way back home when he rejoined the USMC.
Are we going to see a Me163 video?
I thought it was going to be the Komet too :( only plane to have a fully successful mission with no damage taken still be able to dissolve it's pilot
That video was already made.
"Wrongheaded and frequently delusional micro managing..." We,as a civilization are fortunate that those 6 words no longer describe politicians and leaders anymore...they don't do they? Wait... Oh shit....
So, the Gigants were flying sitting ducks?
8:58 Panzer VI??? 12t is not a little over half the weight of a Tiger.
Why are they putting a Tiger into it if the A/C can't carry half that weight???
Simon do you know what you are talking about or just reading a script?
Props to the Me 323 for its contribution in fighting against the Third Reich.
out of malta it was royal navy and raf but at one point ther raf were ready to abandon malta