However you probably normally see it on twin-engined American bombers, such as the B-26, not single-engined British fighters like the Spitfire such as this video used. The dots in the video are in the wrong spot for the Spitfire. Oh hell nah, I just realised that you commented this over a year ago. How was your past year?
Wait a minute backup for a second . US navy in the European theater? Planes were flying out of land based strips in England controlled by the army. And if I remember correctly the reason why our bombers were getting blown out of the sky Because we didn't have fighter's that could escort them to Germany. They had to turn around Halfway there.
Carrier-based aircraft were extremly important in the atlantic theater. Britain operated 7 aircraft carriers in 1939 which came to be used extensively. The USN-aviation was not as prevalent in the atlantic theater as the british (at least in the early stages) but it still operated massive ammounts of carrier bound planes. Concerning the lack of fighter escorts/air superiority: This is kinda true for the earlier parts of the war, but by the end air superiority was established and british/US-american aircraft dominated the skies over europe and the waters which surround it. The atlantic theaters carrier operations are often overlooked due to the focus on the pacific theater by many (probably due to the most famous naval battles happening over there). Many of the aircraft used by the US were either fighters or dive bombers (helldivers and dauntless mostly, i think) meant to establish and maintain naval and air superiority. But carrier-bound bombers and transport aircraft also played a big part.
Did not cost them "the entire fleet". They were pumping out thousands of bombers each month in 1944. Also, it was mainly the Army Air Corps flying over Europe. US Navy planes only saw limited combat in few engagements in the Mediterranean.
Same thing almost happened to helmets in WW1. The brass realized that more injury reports were filled out after soldiers were equipped with helmets. They found it odd but realized that these were just the soldiers that were surviving instead of dying.
@@Automaticguns1 What part of it sounds like bs? The bombers just don't fit onto an aircraft carrier, the runway's too short. As for the "no America carriers", why would there be? Britain and Poland had navies that did the job just fine.
@@Automaticguns1 He's right. Navy bombers only flew off of American carriers or islands in the South Pacific. At no time during the war were American carriers near Europe.
if you put metal armor everywhere, that would increase the weight, so that means less speed. speed was a large priority in 1945 due to the very fast german messershmit 262, the worlds first jet fighter. this mistake could actually have lost ww2.
@@goobero343 not really. The 262 had a grand total of about 2 seconds of TOT after entering an attack run. About half a second to the target, 1 second to fire, and half to escape. Thats the whole reason the R4M (not really successful) was developed. They also were getting shot down in droves, and lack of fuel grounded many.
@@goobero343no offense but the 262 was effectively useless because Germany couldn’t actually build many and the were used primarily in non combative roles. And Americans prodution is so insane compared to Germany this would even be close to war loosing
For D-day, the USAAF put heavy metal plates in the bottom of the gliders we used if the passengers were high ranking officers. When the tow planes and gliders separated the "gliders" plummeted into the ground like meteors!
This reminds a politic on my country that wanted to abolish the birth by cesarean section, except in case were the life was on risk His argument was biased, he said that the mortality was higher than normal births, but he didn't take into account that the majority of cesarean operations occur in high-risk pregnancies Or another example of bias, the amount of Sherman destroyed, the defenders of the tigers, panthers and panzers use that argument. But they don't realize that were more Shermans than any german model on the war (also, the invent that Sherman can penetrate the german armor, but ehen 75 mm canon can do it, now imagine a 105 mm)
To be fair, Japanese tried to add armor on their planes during the war, but the specifics of the theatre made it harder for them. Take for example self-sealing fuel tanks: they tried to add them on the land-based aircrafts, but it took a lot of time for them to start installing them on the naval ones, because it will dramatically affect the plane’s range and to the lesser extent agility
It's only a myth that they actually wrongly armoured the aircraft, and your claim that it nearly cost the bomber squadrons is incorrect. Even the most basic of engineers understands that armouring bare metal isn't doing any good if your leaving the cockpit exposed. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. This is only a hypothetical. No engineer would legitimately go and make useless parts of the plane more protected. Perhaps a not very skilled statistician could make the mistake, but the engineers would straighten him out.
Honestly, I am getting tired of these BS exaggeration vids. Is he seriously trying to go and suggest the nation’s most gifted and talented minds were very much nearly fooled by something that is basic statistics? I’m going to put this under “Do not recommend me this channel”.
They were fooled by the survivorship bias, but they also listened to advice from the Statistical Research Group at Columbia University, where Abraham Wald gave his analysis of the issue.
Sir our planes our getting shot down, armor the cockpits so the pilot survives, you can’t really survive a plane crash and then hiding behind enemy lines consistently
@@kylezdancewicz7346sure but if the plane can get back to friendly territory and then you bail that’s better than dying. Frankly the evidence supporting armoring the cockpit is that plenty of successful planes put armor there.
@@Lyle_K I know but this comment ignores the fact that if the plane goes down the pilot is probably dying, because a ocean, crashing a heavy object into the ground at high speeds and hoping the squishy thing inside it survives, being behind enemy territory, you know where the enemy aircraft and anti air are most likely to be.
@@MrglipglopSo: 1. We want to add armour 2. We cannot add too much 3. The plane doesn’t need to be armoured in some places By spreading the armour evenly, we waste protection on areas that don’t need to be armoured. This takes potential armour away from the areas that do need to be protected. Also remember that in air combat speed is very important, and more armour is more weight is less speed. At times designers would remove armour to gain speed, like in the American Kittyhawk aircraft.
It’s called the bomber problem at this point it’s a classic thought experiment. FYI the military wanted to put the armor not metal on the areas that got shot but economists told them otherwise.
The bomber problem is not a thing. As previously stated, the topic of the video is survivorship bias. You're probably confusing this with the bomber gap that was a belief during the cold war that the Soviet bomber fleet was considerably larger than the US bomber fleet.
@@OB1canblowme no. I am talking about the common example used by professors to teach their students about survivorship bias that is called the bomber problem. It is based on this exact problem that the allied Air Force faced during WW2. The name of the example (the most commonly used one for survivorship bias btw) is the bomber problem. I get that the concept is survivorship bias but the topic of the video is literally on the bomber problem which showcases survivorship bias. Btw, this is something economists learn in year 1 IB HL Econ let alone if you actually go to uni for it
holy shit nearly everything you just said was wrong probably the most famous example of 'Survivorship bias', during WW2, US military was about to reinforce the armor on the fuselage of a plane which had the most hits on surviving ones, and reduce the armor on the engine which had almost no hits. Just when the mathematician, Abraham Wald, entered the field saying "Not so fast! What you should really do is add armor around the engines! What you are forgetting is that the aircraft that are most damaged don't return. You just don't see them."
Well, that's the well-known story. Was US military so incompetent for a mathematician to lecture them the engine is the real weak point of a plane? Of course, it wasn't. What US military actually wanted to know was much deeper and complicated than that, which can be summed up as : Is it possible to get detailed information on downed aircrafts (How many hits they have sustained, where they were hit by which caliber, etc.), based only on information on aircrafts that returned back to airfield? Wald provided formulas for that exact question, based on several assumptions. For example, he claimed a 20mm hit on engine area is the most fatal event for a aircraft(53.4%), followed by a 7.92mm bullet hit on forward fuselage(19.4%) Important thing is, these probability calculations are done without a single information on actual downed planes. And it's pretty different from the simple picture of hit probabilities commonly used on survivorship bias (and in the meme). On extremely oversimplified example, if US military really used simple survivorship bias alone for reinforcing plane protection, it could have provided pilots with cannon-proof helmet because apparently no plane has made it back with a 20mm hit on its pilot's head.
Actually, logically speaking, you want to add armour to the places where there is fuel, components, or crew. everything else is, by definition, expendable. no fuel, no way to come home, no engine/controls, same, and no crew, again, same. so forget mapping out bullet holes! thats what i say.
Honestly I would just add it where the planes were not shot but then also in places where they were shot that is close to I spot that was not shot just in case
Explenarion:the part wheres no holes is important:the wing parts next to the body of the plane: if they get shot here the wings will most likely get ripped apart,Tail:if it gets shot here the tail will rip off sending the plane spiralling down to the ground,Engine:if it gets shot here the engine wont work and could stop working or possibly blow up
The same case also occured when after a new helmets for infantries were implemented, the rate of wounded soldiers suddenly increased. The officers thought first that the helmet had failed to protect the soldiers' head. However, the helmets actually worked because that meant the rate of killed soldiers were reduced. They were not killed anymore, just wounded
It does make sense too because basic physics tells you if you take something off the bottom of a structure Like the foundation, the whole thing comes down. But if you take off tue Top, Most of the structure is still Standing. The Wings and back where it isn’t Shot is basically like the foundation.
Reminds me of when they were having a huge spike in injuries during ww1 right after they added steel helmets only to realize the injuries would have been deaths without them
I personally said that you should put plating and protection on the places that weren’t getting shot because every plane is coming back, but in those specific places they were never shot
i have heard this story many times, but i am not aware of any ww2 bomber with armor in it's wings. armor is heavy, and is usually only used to protect the crew before the structure of the plane
The technology progression during the war is insane. Like, they went from slightly more advanced than WWI aircraft to early cold war era aircraft in just under 4 years.
Most aircrafts at the start of the war were actually much more advanced then anything from WW1. Speed has almost doubled, range sometimes was more then 10 times higher, armament more then twice as heavy.
Same happened with helmets. They were upset that there was an increase in head injuries, thinking it was due to the helmets. They didnt consider fatalities was down. Fatal injuries were now trauma injuries. In the end they probably were mad anyway. Caring for an injured soldier takes more resources than a dead one
I just noticed that you and Henry Belcaster were sharing the same room. Why do his videos get more views though even though your videos came out first?
More stories 👉 SmartNonsense.com 🌈
Us navy?
Mathematician spotted it.
Not US it was British
Does rainbow symbolize something?
This was a british fighter thing not us bomber thing
Rookie mistake: They used a spitfire to do strategic bombing lmao
used a fighter for ground attack lmaaaao
"I only had to rearm 50 times"
@@ohioanbutt_ticklingbanditstill better than me-177 for ground attack
@@pigeon.and.pigeon better then using a fucking biplane thats for sure
imagine mounting a 20mm on a biplane
more specifically a mk xivc
"American Bombers"
Proceeds to show a spitfire through the entire video:
And started it with the U.S. Navy made a logical falicy
neither American nor a bomber.
@@A._.Neill26fr, not sure what happened in the editing department
Yea not everybodies a hyper-attentive history geek@@darracqboy
And P47's in some shots aswell
The Spitefire Mk. IX was the most effective American bomber during the 2nd world war. What an amazing feat, it was.
*1st world war.
The lack of knowledge some people have is astounding
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
No clearly it was used in the US war of independence and took part in burning down the White House
The French and Indian war* your lack of knowledge makes me cringe
@@APXWOXThe Crimean War* I find your lack of knowledge disturbing
ah yes, the spitfire mk ix. my favorite us bomber!
It’s not an IX though, it’s a griffon. probably a Mk. XIVc considering it's not full bubble-canopy design but a Griffin Spitfire.
@@C0ldB3er ur right
If battlefield V has taught me anything, every kind of plane is a bomber if you try hard enough
@Digital_Soldier_31 it can bomb yes. I just gotta resupply every minute
*us navy bomber
Classic logic mistake that could’ve cost them the war: Using a spitfire as a strategic bomber 💀
Some spitfires are equipped with small bombs made to destroy railway and enemy merchant ships but not for a full scale bombing raid like the B-17
"No armor best armor"-warthunder players
I can confirm, they can’t hit you if they go straight through you
Remember when the b-17 was unstoppable
Japanese zeros after being set on fire for the 5th time: Yes
@@pieterdeliho1492 i play mostly zero, you feel like god while in turn fight. But most of the time you feel like duck waiting to get shot haha
See this man gets it… all theses other dummy’s adding armour smh
Why are you using a British fighter for a video about American bomber planes?
we all in it together baby 🫶
Because it's a British story being claimed by Americans
@Peaker’s Lab the dud probably doesn't know anything and made bad content
If there weren’t markings I would’ve thought the fighter was a P47
@Peaker’s Lab Just like U571...
Give credit to the man that told them the logic was wrong, Albert Wald. Note: previous name was incorrect.
true good catch. thanks Marian 🙏
Still haven't given credit
He was Polish
Sorry, It was Abraham Wald (Jewish Statistician from Hungary).
@@IsmailV88 who the f cares bruh, doubt Marian actually cares cause he dead 🤦♂️
“The us planes needed more protection”
Proceeds to show a British spitfire.
dude the spitfire was the best american bomber of ww2 whatcha on about. (jk)
I think he meant to say Allies Planes. This same thing was also implemented in the British army i believe.
The damage was so bad that a b17 came back looking like a spitfire
Didn't fool me, because I've seen this chart 1000 times
However you probably normally see it on twin-engined American bombers, such as the B-26, not single-engined British fighters like the Spitfire such as this video used. The dots in the video are in the wrong spot for the Spitfire.
Oh hell nah, I just realised that you commented this over a year ago. How was your past year?
@@tetronaut88yeah lol, the center dots got put right at the cockpit
Wait a minute backup for a second . US navy in the European theater? Planes were flying out of land based strips in England controlled by the army. And if I remember correctly the reason why our bombers were getting blown out of the sky Because we didn't have fighter's that could escort them to Germany. They had to turn around Halfway there.
Carrier-based aircraft were extremly important in the atlantic theater. Britain operated 7 aircraft carriers in 1939 which came to be used extensively. The USN-aviation was not as prevalent in the atlantic theater as the british (at least in the early stages) but it still operated massive ammounts of carrier bound planes. Concerning the lack of fighter escorts/air superiority: This is kinda true for the earlier parts of the war, but by the end air superiority was established and british/US-american aircraft dominated the skies over europe and the waters which surround it. The atlantic theaters carrier operations are often overlooked due to the focus on the pacific theater by many (probably due to the most famous naval battles happening over there). Many of the aircraft used by the US were either fighters or dive bombers (helldivers and dauntless mostly, i think) meant to establish and maintain naval and air superiority. But carrier-bound bombers and transport aircraft also played a big part.
@@toomnLP You stated British carriers. The video stated US carriers. Name the US carriers that were in the European Theater?
Some would still return home so this would apply to those bombers that had bullet holes
That’s the fun part they weren’t getting blown out of the sky
@@bige9830 This story is originally about British planes, not American.
No I wasn't fooled, my years of playing war thunder have finally paid off.
Warthunder causes me extreme suffering, I’m even in a squadron
@@jonsed90 same bro
it's whne you say things like that, you know, you're too deep to come back, hahaa
IT CAUSE ME PTSD
@@jonsed90 I have it even worse, I *_AM_* the squadron leader
The US navy “shows british Spitfire aircraft”
Lets not over exaggerate, this would in no way have costed them the war.
Exactly the comment I was looking for
That’s right. The allies only started bombing when germany already practically lost the war
@@justusP9101The Allies are not the Americans. They're the Allies.
Frenchies and brits targeted Germany years before US even joined.
@@justusP9101Not really, the most allied nations were bombing Germany in the early parts of the war, and the US joined in by the middle of the war
The red dots in the cockpit, returned home?
American bias tbh
@@SweetSniper5197 lmao golden comment
Smartest American
The cockpit should be red already
Maybe that's where all the blood drained out
You using a Spifire. It’s a British fighter. You said the US Navy? What are you talking about?
And a spitfire is a fighter not a bomber
Yeah lol
The story was actually originally about the British. So technically he isn’t wrong.
@@pickle4422 but he was wrong because he said us navy and us military
@@pickle4422 why use a fighter when talking about bombers
Him: US planes
video: Spitfire
Mistake, they added armour to someone elses planes
Did not cost them "the entire fleet". They were pumping out thousands of bombers each month in 1944. Also, it was mainly the Army Air Corps flying over Europe. US Navy planes only saw limited combat in few engagements in the Mediterranean.
Someone saw the survivorship bias video that was widely recommended to people 2-3 days ago
Wow this is the first video I've seen on TH-cam about survivor bias thanks for gracing us with the original content.
that’s why i’m here
Damn you must have been in the wrong side of TH-cam all along. I've seen it hundreds of times.
@@dylanjardon oof. I think y'all missed the sarcasm bruh.
"did it fool you ??" Me: sandwich eating noises intensives
Same
Same thing almost happened to helmets in WW1. The brass realized that more injury reports were filled out after soldiers were equipped with helmets. They found it odd but realized that these were just the soldiers that were surviving instead of dying.
Bro that is a British spitfire
Navy? The bombers in Europe were operating under the Army Air Force, there were no American carriers in the atlantic
You got a source bud cause that sounds like bullshit
@@Automaticguns1 What part of it sounds like bs? The bombers just don't fit onto an aircraft carrier, the runway's too short. As for the "no America carriers", why would there be? Britain and Poland had navies that did the job just fine.
@@Automaticguns1 He's right. Navy bombers only flew off of American carriers or
islands in the South Pacific. At no time during the war were American carriers near Europe.
@@Automaticguns1 calls him an idiot, refuses to elaborate, leaves.
Wasp was in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Ranger stayed in the Atlantic.
I already knew this the guy who convinced them to do it was a hero.
“Where would you put the metal?”
Me: everywhere
if you put metal armor everywhere, that would increase the weight, so that means less speed. speed was a large priority in 1945 due to the very fast german messershmit 262, the worlds first jet fighter. this mistake could actually have lost ww2.
@@goobero343 not really. The 262 had a grand total of about 2 seconds of TOT after entering an attack run. About half a second to the target, 1 second to fire, and half to escape.
Thats the whole reason the R4M (not really successful) was developed. They also were getting shot down in droves, and lack of fuel grounded many.
@@goobero343no offense but the 262 was effectively useless because Germany couldn’t actually build many and the were used primarily in non combative roles. And Americans prodution is so insane compared to Germany this would even be close to war loosing
For D-day, the USAAF put heavy metal plates in the bottom of the gliders we used if the passengers were high ranking officers. When the tow planes and gliders separated the "gliders" plummeted into the ground like meteors!
@@goobero343 Say that to the F6F Hellcat. Those bloody planes could take a serious beating from the Mitsubishi Zeros.
This reminds a politic on my country that wanted to abolish the birth by cesarean section, except in case were the life was on risk
His argument was biased, he said that the mortality was higher than normal births, but he didn't take into account that the majority of cesarean operations occur in high-risk pregnancies
Or another example of bias, the amount of Sherman destroyed, the defenders of the tigers, panthers and panzers use that argument. But they don't realize that were more Shermans than any german model on the war (also, the invent that Sherman can penetrate the german armor, but ehen 75 mm canon can do it, now imagine a 105 mm)
I’d put the protection where they aren’t shot, because that’s the important part now.
Every single visual you used for "American bombers" were British Spitfire fighter planes
I literally just watched a guy explaining this to his class
yes he’s a G of a teacher
No he’s not, cus the class is left knowing that the spitfire is a US bomber, but it’s a British fighter.
@@darracqboy Can't use something as an example nowadays?
@@alwexandria why not use a b 17 as an example?
Meanwhile Japan:
Armor? What the fuck is that? What we need is fire power and mobility!
To be fair, Japanese tried to add armor on their planes during the war, but the specifics of the theatre made it harder for them. Take for example self-sealing fuel tanks: they tried to add them on the land-based aircrafts, but it took a lot of time for them to start installing them on the naval ones, because it will dramatically affect the plane’s range and to the lesser extent agility
Yeah but you'd also want the pilots to be protected aswell cuz ik for sure that ai planes are not here yet
Bomber fleet. Shows fighter. US planes. Shows spitfire. Add metal to the engine. Bangs a hammer everywhere else except the engine.
Bro didnt even have to see the whole vid we've all seen this they put armor on the parts that weren't hit
Warthunder players: “My logic is beyond your understanding”
hmm yes my favourite bomber, the spitfire
Me: just add armor everywhere 💀
Bro had the guts to say "Nazi Germany" 💀💀💀
It's only a myth that they actually wrongly armoured the aircraft, and your claim that it nearly cost the bomber squadrons is incorrect. Even the most basic of engineers understands that armouring bare metal isn't doing any good if your leaving the cockpit exposed. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
This is only a hypothetical. No engineer would legitimately go and make useless parts of the plane more protected. Perhaps a not very skilled statistician could make the mistake, but the engineers would straighten him out.
Honestly, I am getting tired of these BS exaggeration vids.
Is he seriously trying to go and suggest the nation’s most gifted and talented minds were very much nearly fooled by something that is basic statistics?
I’m going to put this under “Do not recommend me this channel”.
@@Justin-ui5ti Exactly, shorts content is driving me insane
They were fooled by the survivorship bias, but they also listened to advice from the Statistical Research Group at Columbia University, where Abraham Wald gave his analysis of the issue.
armor the cockpit, you can replace or fix a damn good aircraft but you cant replace a damn good pilot.
Sir our planes our getting shot down, armor the cockpits so the pilot survives, you can’t really survive a plane crash and then hiding behind enemy lines consistently
@@kylezdancewicz7346sure but if the plane can get back to friendly territory and then you bail that’s better than dying. Frankly the evidence supporting armoring the cockpit is that plenty of successful planes put armor there.
@@Lyle_K I know but this comment ignores the fact that if the plane goes down the pilot is probably dying, because a ocean, crashing a heavy object into the ground at high speeds and hoping the squishy thing inside it survives, being behind enemy territory, you know where the enemy aircraft and anti air are most likely to be.
you say they thought to put it where there is red but later you say they didn't get fooled?
i would add armor everywhere since its preferable to not get holes in my bombers
Only problem is the weight induced by this means less ordnance or weight in other areas like crew and defences
Bro I figured it out. I’m so proud of myself yet it means nothing. 😂
No your a war tactician master now
@@jarvis6253 it’s just common sense, add it to the places where there are stress points like the wing connections + vitals of the airplanes
Add metal evenly, its called weight distribution
That would've made the aircraft too heavy to take off.
@@remkirkthegamer1157 just dont make it that heavy 💀
@@MrglipglopSo:
1. We want to add armour
2. We cannot add too much
3. The plane doesn’t need to be armoured in some places
By spreading the armour evenly, we waste protection on areas that don’t need to be armoured. This takes potential armour away from the areas that do need to be protected. Also remember that in air combat speed is very important, and more armour is more weight is less speed. At times designers would remove armour to gain speed, like in the American Kittyhawk aircraft.
@@carrott36 aint reading your book lil bro keep the yapping to a minimum
@@Mrglipglop 30s is how long it will take to read that. If you want to seem right or better than others, that there is not the way to do it.
Heard this 1 million times already
Navy 💀 thought it was the Air Force 💀
The air force was founded in 1947
It was the army sir.
In the beginning you said they made the mistake but in the end u said they didnt..?
Already knew this, I had to solve this in History class
Awesome
It’s called the bomber problem at this point it’s a classic thought experiment. FYI the military wanted to put the armor not metal on the areas that got shot but economists told them otherwise.
It’s actually called „survivorship bias“. It is just „the bomber problem“ because it has something to do with bombers. No one calls it that.
@@nanolog522 the example is the bomber problem
The bomber problem is not a thing. As previously stated, the topic of the video is survivorship bias. You're probably confusing this with the bomber gap that was a belief during the cold war that the Soviet bomber fleet was considerably larger than the US bomber fleet.
@@OB1canblowme no. I am talking about the common example used by professors to teach their students about survivorship bias that is called the bomber problem. It is based on this exact problem that the allied Air Force faced during WW2. The name of the example (the most commonly used one for survivorship bias btw) is the bomber problem. I get that the concept is survivorship bias but the topic of the video is literally on the bomber problem which showcases survivorship bias.
Btw, this is something economists learn in year 1 IB HL Econ let alone if you actually go to uni for it
Yup, really woulda cost the whole war. Great assessment
holy shit nearly everything you just said was wrong
probably the most famous example of 'Survivorship bias', during WW2, US military was about to reinforce the armor on the fuselage of a plane which had the most hits on surviving ones, and reduce the armor on the engine which had almost no hits.
Just when the mathematician, Abraham Wald, entered the field saying "Not so fast! What you should really do is add armor around the engines! What you are forgetting is that the aircraft that are most damaged don't return. You just don't see them."
Well, that's the well-known story. Was US military so incompetent for a mathematician to lecture them the engine is the real weak point of a plane?
Of course, it wasn't.
What US military actually wanted to know was much deeper and complicated than that, which can be summed up as :
Is it possible to get detailed information on downed aircrafts (How many hits they have sustained, where they were hit by which caliber, etc.), based only on information on aircrafts that returned back to airfield?
Wald provided formulas for that exact question, based on several assumptions.
For example, he claimed a 20mm hit on engine area is the most fatal event for a aircraft(53.4%), followed by a 7.92mm bullet hit on forward fuselage(19.4%)
Important thing is, these probability calculations are done without a single information on actual downed planes.
And it's pretty different from the simple picture of hit probabilities commonly used on survivorship bias (and in the meme). On extremely oversimplified example, if US military really used simple survivorship bias alone for reinforcing plane protection, it could have provided pilots with cannon-proof helmet because apparently no plane has made it back with a 20mm hit on its pilot's head.
apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA091073.pdf
www.ams.org/publicoutreach/feature-column/fc-2016-06
Actually the British came up with the idea and gave it to the Americans
Actually, logically speaking, you want to add armour to the places where there is fuel, components, or crew. everything else is, by definition, expendable.
no fuel, no way to come home, no engine/controls, same, and no crew, again, same. so forget mapping out bullet holes! thats what i say.
"american bombers"
proceeds to show spitfire with raf badge...
Bro there wasn’t shit that would have made the allies lose
Honestly I would just add it where the planes were not shot but then also in places where they were shot that is close to I spot that was not shot just in case
Don't think the Navy had many planes in the European skies. Pretty sloppy work on their part.
I'm very sure a bomber that fell from 30k ft going 200-400mph is great for telling what destroyed it
I have one question
How did the pilot survive being shot many times
To some extent, minor armor around the pilot might still be a good idea. It’s pretty quick to build a new plane, not that easy to build a new pilot.
Logically, you want to protect the fuel tanks the most because they could be punctured and ignite (tracer or incendiary rounds were common)
POV: You said everywhere.
Bro really had the nuts to say it💀😭🙏
My brain wired to put the metal in the windows
“Bomber problem”
*proceeds to show a spitfire*
"Who needs armor when you can kamikaze" - War Thunder Player
Truer words have never been spoken
Key phrase: The ones that were shot DOWN
Explenarion:the part wheres no holes is important:the wing parts next to the body of the plane: if they get shot here the wings will most likely get ripped apart,Tail:if it gets shot here the tail will rip off sending the plane spiralling down to the ground,Engine:if it gets shot here the engine wont work and could stop working or possibly blow up
The planes shown in this video are spitfires
"Maybe cost them the war"
I'm pretty sure that is a huge overstatement we still would've won but not without more losses
The same case also occured when after a new helmets for infantries were implemented, the rate of wounded soldiers suddenly increased. The officers thought first that the helmet had failed to protect the soldiers' head. However, the helmets actually worked because that meant the rate of killed soldiers were reduced. They were not killed anymore, just wounded
Same problem with a space rocket where they removed certain important data from a graph
It does make sense too because basic physics tells you if you take something off the bottom of a structure Like the foundation, the whole thing comes down. But if you take off tue Top, Most of the structure is still Standing. The Wings and back where it isn’t Shot is basically like the foundation.
Reminds me of when they were having a huge spike in injuries during ww1 right after they added steel helmets only to realize the injuries would have been deaths without them
I personally said that you should put plating and protection on the places that weren’t getting shot because every plane is coming back, but in those specific places they were never shot
They didn’t armor the places they DIDN’T get shot which meant that they areas that did get shot still allowed the plane to land
It's a bomber.
Shows an spitfire (fighter)
Where they didn’t get shot because that’s where the ones that didn’t come back got shot
i have heard this story many times, but i am not aware of any ww2 bomber with armor in it's wings. armor is heavy, and is usually only used to protect the crew before the structure of the plane
I knew exactly where this way going thanks to my amazing history teacher, this was a nice callback to that moment
Says American fighters shows a spitfire
The technology progression during the war is insane. Like, they went from slightly more advanced than WWI aircraft to early cold war era aircraft in just under 4 years.
dude they went from spitfires being british fighters to spitfires being American bombers.
Most aircrafts at the start of the war were actually much more advanced then anything from WW1. Speed has almost doubled, range sometimes was more then 10 times higher, armament more then twice as heavy.
This man should contact Einstein 😂
The issue was they added the armour to where the surviving planes where not where the dead planes were so the armour was practically useless
Germans were inteligent
they know that shooting wings might help
Same happened with helmets. They were upset that there was an increase in head injuries, thinking it was due to the helmets. They didnt consider fatalities was down. Fatal injuries were now trauma injuries. In the end they probably were mad anyway. Caring for an injured soldier takes more resources than a dead one
I was thinking the extra armour might mess up the balance
I just noticed that you and Henry Belcaster were sharing the same room. Why do his videos get more views though even though your videos came out first?
That's a spitfire not a B17 or whatever
U gotta love that they use a British spitfire to represent American planes
Furthermore he says "bomber", but the spitfire wasn't even a bomber
@@theodenking320 exactly, it was the British's best "fighter".
Spitfire is also close air support, They attached rockets into it
Also, this design process was innovated not by bombers, but by heavy fighters like the P-47 and others
I would put the armor where it not red
U didnt trick me I already knew this😅
How did that spitfire even survive💀💀💀
Wotb hellcat:no armour,just speed