I'd vote for the SBD Dauntless Dive Bomber. It did sink the carriers Hiryu, Kaga, Akagi, and Soyru in the Battle of Midway. It contributed to the sinking of Shoho in the Coral sea and sinking Ryujo near the Solomon Islands in the Guadalcanal campaign. Additional scores included 14 cruisers, 6 destroyers, 15 transport/cargo ships and numerous smaller craft throughout the war. I grant you the combination of the Val and Kate had a higher overall score, I submit that the IJN had a head start not to mention inferior opposition in the early part of the Pacific war. The USN had to, using a sports metaphor, come from behind.
The Dauntless was considered as obsolete at the time of PH. Yet it proved itself the accidental successful dive-bomber, & the Navy stuck with it. The Helldiver was not superior. However, a tear for the Vultee Vengeance 😢
@minhthunguyendang9900 The Dauntless wasn't considered obsolete at the time of Pearl Harbor, are you thinking of the Devastator? And while the Helldiver had some serious problems early on, by the end of the war it was clearly superior to the Dauntless, even become the plane with the most enemy shipping sunk.
Sorry, the Dauntless and Helldiver had one "flaw" that made it impossible to be the forerunner...They were not Axis planes. The question is: "What Axis Plane(s) destroyed the most Allied vessels?"
I absolutely love your narration style......... This videos icing on the cake was most definitely "Anti-anti-aircraft-aircraft" 👌 Don't ever change IHYLS, don't ever change............👍
The Nakajima Sisters: Kate & Jill where some very pretty Aircraft with impressive range & decent speed (If I ever win the lottery jackpot - I'm building a "genuine" Nakajima Warbird - Need a flying "Subaru Warbird" in my life 🙂
It was a dead end plane concept (like these two Japanese aircraft) that were soon outdated once the fighting started but were flown bravely but didn’t have the aspects required to survive in WWll. The main strength of the Japanese at the start of the Pacific War were their audacity , experience, and tactics these planes worked well against the allies for the first year of the war but once America’s production was ramped up radar, stronger AA capabilities, and better aircraft designs and tactics made the Japanese aircraft’s weaknesses fatal for both their crews and Japan’s war effort.
You've a nice channel & you do a good job, very rarely do I find mistakes. My Father having retired from the U.S. Air force, I literally grew up there. The Nation Museum of the U.S. Air Force on Wright-Patterson AFB outside Dayton, Oh. has a A6m2 Zero & a N1K2-Ja Shinden Kai. Don't know why they haven't a Val or Kate being there was so many of them, God knows they got everything else
@@SoloRenegade Both great aircraft of the next generation. I've read the Swordfish has the highest tonnage sunk. Would to see someone do the numbers on that for the 3 aircraft.
yeah, famous, I rather go with those one who looks the worst, awful, and ugly, but at same time, they tried and doing jobs. Buffalo, Devastator, Helldiver and etc etc was not except among them.
I really do have to ask, why western sources, when talking about officially adopted Japanese planes, they go with their prototype designation instead of the official designation. Yeah, yeah, I get the whole "My favorite Japanese military item is the Type 94" "Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?" meme. But it just feels weird and sometimes just hard to understand. Imagine if someone just started calling the Bf-109 as the P.1034 or the MC.202 as MM.445 and expecting everyone to just go along with it ^^" its just weird. is calling it the Type-97 torpedo bomber and the Type-99 dive bomber that confusing?
We need more videos like this, I know rex's hanger as a "in defence of" series where he looks at what are considered to be the worst ww2 aircraft. For example the Buffalo. And defends their reputations. I also know greg has done a couple of his own. I just hate this whole thing where certain aircraft take the spotlight.
Just one oversight to mention, considering you mentioned the small bomb load earlier: for the Pearl Harbor attack, the D3As were equipped with 1600lb Armor-piercing bombs converted from 15" naval shells.
First, the heavy armor piercing bombs were equipped on the B5Ns, not the D3As, as the latter couldn't carry them. Second, they were converted from 16" (41cm) shells, Japan didn't have any ships with 15" guns.
Nakajima B5N also served as a high level bomber. It scored some important hits in this roll. The conversion equipment from torpedo or bombing missions took hours to change.
You mention the lack of d armor and self sealing fuel tanks. I don’t think any contemporary western aircraft used these items either. If I recall correctly, the f4f wildcat didn’t have self sealing tanks til early 1942
I know it doesn't count as a dedicated anti-shipping bomber, and correct me if im wrong, but im pretty sure the Junkers Ju87 sank more ships than any aircraft in history, along with its many other accolades.
22:54 Saying that there were D4Ys at Midway is pretty misleading. There were no Suisei dive bombers there, only unarmed Type 2 Recon aircraft that were based on them.
This question came to my mind: as far as I've heard, when ditching, planes with fixed landing gear are extremely vulnerable to capsize. Has anyone worked on an emergency way to get rid of these wheels before hitting the water? Maybe pyrotechnic separation of elements or another method?
I think that was used on some experimental aircraft but most pilots had rather not have explosive packets incorporated on their landing gear when they could get shot at. Better to take the risk of flipping in water than blowing out the spar.
@@sadwingsraging3044 Well, shelling in war would be a problem, because a random bullet could activate such a charge. But in civil aviation, a suitably small and cleverly placed explosive charge... They are even in some seat belts for quicker tightening! I remember the case of the EM-11 Orka plane. The designer insisted that he wanted a retractable landing gear so that you could land on your belly. Making the landing gear retractable added so much weight to the plane that it ruined all the aerodynamic advantage. But - he argued - this emergency landing option was important.
Both aircraft needed fighter cover to protect them. Early war the Zero could do this but later the Zero needed help itself, thus all 3 aircraft needed help ! HELP !! and didn't get it. Upping the rear facing defensive guns would have helped but for some reason no nation did this adequately .
As always in war it's a combination of what you've got and what you do with it, the Fairey Swordfish, arguably obsolete when the war started, served throughout the conflict and sank over a million tonnes of axis shipping with it's mighty 140ish mph top speed (so long as it wasn't too windy) - but obviously not against determined air cover. The Japanese were increasingly on a hiding to nothing, you only have to look at the staggeringly positive kill ratios of the US fighters they were up against, not to mention naval AA with radar fire control and proximity fused ammunition by the end,
Not to mention that the Swordfish was responsible for the demise of the Bismark, owing to the crippling torpedo hit that left Bismark only ably to vary the speed of the circles it could describe while awaiting the end, just outside the reach of supporting air cover from the land that was the safety they were seeking.
The Escort carriers carried the Wildcat till the end of the war. The Corsair and Hellcat were better fighters. But the Wildcat did yeoman service protection CVE’s from kamikaze attacks.
They also did outstanding duty against U-boats and FW 200 Condors in 1941 aboard the world's first Escort Carrier, HMS Audacity. The C.V.E. was the brainchild of Winston Churchill.
The Martlet & the Swordfish saved countless tons of shipping simply by being in the air when other types could not. Think of them as flying scarecrows & you get the picture.
did you know the USN used the SBD for Combat Air Patrol alongside the Wildcats to defend the carriers during the first carrier battles of WW2? and they actually did shoot down Japanese aircraft including Zeroes.
Buffalo, Devastator, Helldiver. I would rather take these planes, with bad and ugly, even worse designs. More than famous and under/over-rate, being a hero and praised as a great insanity plane.
1:35 huh the Bristol Beaufort was used in 'secondary roles' me as an Australian 'you need to drop your America won the war by itself bias real fast , Australia built hundreds of these and used them to devestating effect' ....... and the Swordfish ? Secondary roles ? Where were your precious Avengers when that thing was kicking arse ?
Primary roles are being used major naval battles like Coral Sea and Midway. Even if it's an important role, it's still a secondary one. And "built hundreds"? You do realize that the US built tens of thousands, right?
The Dauntless was clearly superior to the D3A. Faster, better payload and not readily flammable. Importantly, It sank more aircraft carriers at Midway.
No it didn't, I'm not sure where that claim came from, but that title goes to the Helldiver. Maybe the Swordfish holds it if you only look at the Atlantic and Mediterranean theaters.
It did not. From around 1941 pretty much all the Swordfish did was patrol duties, at which it excelled. It was hugely loved by its pilots for its ease of handling, reliability & toughness. My dad flew them off escort carriers in the Atlantic, the conditions were unflyable in any other plane but the Swordfish could do it. They didn't even need to sink submarines to protect the convoy, they just had to make them dive so they couldn't get within striking distance, because subs are so slow when submerged. Think of them as flying scarecrows.
Heh. Well, the human guidance system depends on certain cultural aspects, but in the correct circumstances for those aspects, it performed more accurately than any mechanical guidance system available from any side.
Good observation! If the Wildcat was so inferior to the Zero as a fighter, how on Earth did Japan lose so big at Midway? Look at it this way: Can you name ANY ship sunk by a Zero? Fighters don’t sink ships. Bombers and torpedo planes do. As sexy as a sleek fighter looks, as much fun it may be to fly, no matter how romantic the fighter pilot (with, of course, the de rigeur mustache and scarf!). . . The fighter has but two main roles: help your bombers get through, and stop the other guys’ bombers. Brave fighter pilots strive to avoid having tiny .30 cal bullets shot at them. Dive bomber and torpedo bomber pilots, by comparison, deliberately fly straight into gunfire of calibers way, way bigger. 5” naval guns being one of the more common.
Yeh, you love a lot of what you think is clever chat, but all I heard is how you mentioned the Avenger in early passing and totally displayed no knowledge of the MOST EFFECTIVE OF ALL THE TORPEDO/DIVE BOMBER AIRCRAFT, THE SBD DAUNTLESS. It made the others look utterly pathetic.
Yeah, Japan was being stupid trying to replace both of these with planes that didnt even fit on the same carriers. I know that would probably curtail performance a little, but better than than planes they cant even use. TF were they even thinking?
You go through that whole nasal, sing-song introduction, asking "What is the most famous anti-ship aircraft" of World War II and don't even MENTION the Douglas SBD? Must be defective mental equipment....
For most Americans, the Dauntless easily overshadows the Avenger.
agreed, at least during the first half of the war
💯
@@69Applekrate Good point, bearing in mind that the SBD didn't leave much enemy shipping for the last half... 😎
--Or so the legend goes. 😉
@@davidlee-ln9vh We won't talk about the Helldiver...
@@petesheppard1709 best forgotten 👍
Even though the Kate became outdated rather quickly….i still think it’s a beautiful plane
I view it as a very ?Graceful? Aircraft in the air 🤷♂️
I agree, its a very classic looking aircraft.
i am more miss the Devastator.
The Japs had a knack for designing beautiful aircraft.
Ernst Heinkel provided design suggestions for this, which is why it has the same wing planform as the He-70 and -111.
I'd vote for the SBD Dauntless Dive Bomber. It did sink the carriers Hiryu, Kaga, Akagi, and Soyru in the Battle of Midway. It contributed to the sinking of Shoho in the Coral sea and sinking Ryujo near the Solomon Islands in the Guadalcanal campaign. Additional scores included 14 cruisers, 6 destroyers, 15 transport/cargo ships and numerous smaller craft throughout the war. I grant you the combination of the Val and Kate had a higher overall score, I submit that the IJN had a head start not to mention inferior opposition in the early part of the Pacific war. The USN had to, using a sports metaphor, come from behind.
The Dauntless was considered as obsolete at the time of PH.
Yet it proved itself the accidental successful dive-bomber, & the Navy stuck with it.
The Helldiver was not superior.
However, a tear for the Vultee Vengeance 😢
@minhthunguyendang9900 The Dauntless wasn't considered obsolete at the time of Pearl Harbor, are you thinking of the Devastator? And while the Helldiver had some serious problems early on, by the end of the war it was clearly superior to the Dauntless, even become the plane with the most enemy shipping sunk.
@@Quasarnova1 Sorry, I will take the worst one, Buffalo, Devastator, Helldiver. yeah, I am crap, But I refuse go with great renown or best planes.
lol, a single JU87 sunk also a battleship...
and it pilot became the most decorated soldier on the German side...
after killing 500 tanks!
Sorry, the Dauntless and Helldiver had one "flaw" that made it impossible to be the forerunner...They were not Axis planes. The question is: "What Axis Plane(s) destroyed the most Allied vessels?"
One minute into the video and my vote is for the Fairey Swordfish, followed by the Douglas Dauntless.
Thank you for giving these airplanes the spotlight they deserve
"Anti-Anti-Aircraft-Aircraft" - I love it!
Good thing we have summarized this formula into S.E.A.D. nowadays. 😁
They were doing Wild Weasel work before it was cool
15:05 almost made me spit out my drink.
That is the high quality visual presentation that this channel thrives on!
Great vid.
He could've gotten away with using that pic of Piper Perri on the couch, but with 5 dive & torpedo bombers around her instead...!
@@AmbuBadger I prefer the more subtle and less obscene humor.
It’s marginally better than Donut Operator’s drawing describing police shootouts.
I do enjoy this video, I love that you give credit to these aircrafts. even with the other comment.
been waiting for these two to get looked at. thanks
I absolutely love your narration style.........
This videos icing on the cake was most definitely "Anti-anti-aircraft-aircraft" 👌
Don't ever change IHYLS, don't ever change............👍
1 outstanding point. Until now, I have never seen a clear map showing all the wrecks of Ironbottom Sound and nearby areas.
The Nakajima Sisters: Kate & Jill where some very pretty Aircraft with impressive range & decent speed (If I ever win the lottery jackpot - I'm building a "genuine" Nakajima Warbird - Need a flying "Subaru Warbird" in my life 🙂
Excellent essay
Hey IHYLS!
Could you please make a video about the polish light bomber pzl.23 karaś?
PS it was the first aircraft that bombed Germany in ww2 :)
🤝
@@jackaubrey2230 👍
It was a dead end plane concept (like these two Japanese aircraft) that were soon outdated once the fighting started but were flown bravely but didn’t have the aspects required to survive in WWll. The main strength of the Japanese at the start of the Pacific War were their audacity , experience, and tactics these planes worked well against the allies for the first year of the war but once America’s production was ramped up radar, stronger AA capabilities, and better aircraft designs and tactics made the Japanese aircraft’s weaknesses fatal for both their crews and Japan’s war effort.
Good video and the photos are excellent. Important for the years right before the start of the Pacific War and its first 2 years.
it would be cool to see you talk about the J7W1 its my favorite aircraft ever but i know there isint a ton of info on it. keep up the good work!
You've a nice channel & you do a good job, very rarely do I find mistakes. My Father having retired from the U.S. Air force, I literally grew up there. The Nation Museum of the U.S. Air Force on Wright-Patterson AFB outside Dayton, Oh. has a A6m2 Zero & a N1K2-Ja Shinden Kai. Don't know why they haven't a Val or Kate being there was so many of them, God knows they got everything else
Would love to see a video on a D4Y and B6N! There are like zero good videos on either of these planes.
The Catalina would have to rank as one of the more deadly naval combat aircraft.
It has an impressive kill record.
Very interesting. Thank You
Most famous WW2 anti ship aircraft?
Fairey Swordfish.
The attack on the Italian Fleet at Taranto was truly in a class of its own.
Douglas SBD Dauntless. The bane of japanese carriers at Midway. And even further during the Solomons campaign.
Not to forget the critical role in disabling the Bismark.
SBD Dauntless
And the Avenger was the most successful torpedo plane in history.
@@SoloRenegade Both great aircraft of the next generation. I've read the Swordfish has the highest tonnage sunk. Would to see someone do the numbers on that for the 3 aircraft.
yeah, famous, I rather go with those one who looks the worst, awful, and ugly, but at same time, they tried and doing jobs. Buffalo, Devastator, Helldiver and etc etc was not except among them.
Nice video on the Ekans AND Koffing of the IJN.
I would be really curious about the FM-2 variant of the Wildcat. It was a very fine aircraft of its own place and use, IMHO.
I really do have to ask, why western sources, when talking about officially adopted Japanese planes, they go with their prototype designation instead of the official designation.
Yeah, yeah, I get the whole "My favorite Japanese military item is the Type 94" "Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?" meme.
But it just feels weird and sometimes just hard to understand. Imagine if someone just started calling the Bf-109 as the P.1034 or the MC.202 as MM.445 and expecting everyone to just go along with it ^^" its just weird.
is calling it the Type-97 torpedo bomber and the Type-99 dive bomber that confusing?
Well done!
We need more videos like this, I know rex's hanger as a "in defence of" series where he looks at what are considered to be the worst ww2 aircraft. For example the Buffalo.
And defends their reputations.
I also know greg has done a couple of his own.
I just hate this whole thing where certain aircraft take the spotlight.
Just one oversight to mention, considering you mentioned the small bomb load earlier: for the Pearl Harbor attack, the D3As were equipped with 1600lb Armor-piercing bombs converted from 15" naval shells.
First, the heavy armor piercing bombs were equipped on the B5Ns, not the D3As, as the latter couldn't carry them. Second, they were converted from 16" (41cm) shells, Japan didn't have any ships with 15" guns.
Great vid!
Thanks cat!
😎👍
Also i can not tell at all that it was a different take!
Nakajima B5N also served as a high level bomber. It scored some important hits in this roll. The conversion equipment from torpedo or bombing missions took hours to change.
You mention the lack of d armor and self sealing fuel tanks. I don’t think any contemporary western aircraft used these items either. If I recall correctly, the f4f wildcat didn’t have self sealing tanks til early 1942
Excelent subject.
23:02 Thought they used A6M2's with a 250 kg bomb slung under the fuselage and a pair of wing-mounted 150 L drop tanks
I know it doesn't count as a dedicated anti-shipping bomber, and correct me if im wrong, but im pretty sure the Junkers Ju87 sank more ships than any aircraft in history, along with its many other accolades.
Next time, try alternating between using their numbered designations and their allied code names...For variety.
Not mentioned , the adoption of the 5"38 shell with proximity fuse , and massing crazy numbers of 40mm bodies , and vast numbers of 20mm auto Canon's
So, the planes sent to intercept those bombers were actually anti anti anti aircraft aircraft aircraft?! 😆😆😆
🤯
Say that three times fast
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
otherwise known as AAAAAA or SextupleA lol
lol.
Day 1 of asking for Mitsubishi G4M behs toan.
The image @ 1:13 struck me.
Wile E Coyote indeed.😳
First thing that comes to mind when I think of anti-ship aircraft is the SM 79
Can you create a playlist for Japanese planes?
16:53 sort of like SEAD for anti-ship raids.
P1Y1 my beloved
Japanese planes were great at the start, then fell behind as the allies woke up.
The SBD Dauntless literally shortened the War by at least a year at Midway.
22:54 Saying that there were D4Ys at Midway is pretty misleading. There were no Suisei dive bombers there, only unarmed Type 2 Recon aircraft that were based on them.
This question came to my mind: as far as I've heard, when ditching, planes with fixed landing gear are extremely vulnerable to capsize. Has anyone worked on an emergency way to get rid of these wheels before hitting the water? Maybe pyrotechnic separation of elements or another method?
I think that was used on some experimental aircraft but most pilots had rather not have explosive packets incorporated on their landing gear when they could get shot at. Better to take the risk of flipping in water than blowing out the spar.
@@sadwingsraging3044 Well, shelling in war would be a problem, because a random bullet could activate such a charge. But in civil aviation, a suitably small and cleverly placed explosive charge... They are even in some seat belts for quicker tightening! I remember the case of the EM-11 Orka plane. The designer insisted that he wanted a retractable landing gear so that you could land on your belly. Making the landing gear retractable added so much weight to the plane that it ruined all the aerodynamic advantage. But - he argued - this emergency landing option was important.
How about the B-29 in its mine laying role?
Does anyone know why the Japanese aeroplanes had yellow stripes on the leading edges of their wings?
Say their names, Val and Kate 🎉🎉
00:00 yo that dude either about to get royally smacked or have the closest call of his life.
Both aircraft needed fighter cover to protect them. Early war the Zero could do this but later the Zero needed help itself, thus all 3 aircraft needed help ! HELP !! and didn't get it. Upping the rear facing defensive guns would have helped but for some reason no nation did this adequately .
As always in war it's a combination of what you've got and what you do with it, the Fairey Swordfish, arguably obsolete when the war started, served throughout the conflict and sank over a million tonnes of axis shipping with it's mighty 140ish mph top speed (so long as it wasn't too windy) - but obviously not against determined air cover. The Japanese were increasingly on a hiding to nothing, you only have to look at the staggeringly positive kill ratios of the US fighters they were up against, not to mention naval AA with radar fire control and proximity fused ammunition by the end,
Not to mention that the Swordfish was responsible for the demise of the Bismark, owing to the crippling torpedo hit that left Bismark only ably to vary the speed of the circles it could describe while awaiting the end, just outside the reach of supporting air cover from the land that was the safety they were seeking.
@phillee2814 Sadly not the same when attempting to intercept the Channel Dash...
@@steveball2307 EVERYTHING failed on that occasion though, and there was no glory to be had by anyone.
@phillee2814 Especially given the same crews exploits against Bismark
The Escort carriers carried the Wildcat till the end of the war. The Corsair and Hellcat were better fighters. But the Wildcat did yeoman service protection CVE’s from kamikaze attacks.
They also did outstanding duty against U-boats and FW 200 Condors in 1941 aboard the world's first Escort Carrier, HMS Audacity. The C.V.E. was the brainchild of Winston Churchill.
The Martlet & the Swordfish saved countless tons of shipping simply by being in the air when other types could not. Think of them as flying scarecrows & you get the picture.
VAL sank more allied shipping than any other Axis Aircraft!
did you know the USN used the SBD for Combat Air Patrol alongside the Wildcats to defend the carriers during the first carrier battles of WW2? and they actually did shoot down Japanese aircraft including Zeroes.
If you're not American, then it might not be the Avenger, but perhaps the Stringbag or the Beaufighter.
The beaufighter is underrated as fuck
Buffalo, Devastator, Helldiver. I would rather take these planes, with bad and ugly, even worse designs. More than famous and under/over-rate, being a hero and praised as a great insanity plane.
1:35 huh the Bristol Beaufort was used in 'secondary roles' me as an Australian 'you need to drop your America won the war by itself bias real fast , Australia built hundreds of these and used them to devestating effect' ....... and the Swordfish ? Secondary roles ? Where were your precious Avengers when that thing was kicking arse ?
Primary roles are being used major naval battles like Coral Sea and Midway. Even if it's an important role, it's still a secondary one. And "built hundreds"? You do realize that the US built tens of thousands, right?
The Dauntless was clearly superior to the D3A. Faster, better payload and not readily flammable. Importantly, It sank more aircraft carriers at Midway.
How 'bout the damn Dauntless? Probably sank more ships than all the others combined.
I can guarantee more people know what Kamikaze is than Grumman TBF Avenger.
The Japanese sure knew how to make 'em pretty, didn't they?
Swordfish all day
Surprised you haven't done the F7U Cutlass yet
Lemme google thiOMG!!!!! What is that?
Ahem.
The glorious Stringbag sank more Axis Shipping tonnage than any of the other Allied types.
As you were.
Carry on.
Well Said.
No it didn't, I'm not sure where that claim came from, but that title goes to the Helldiver. Maybe the Swordfish holds it if you only look at the Atlantic and Mediterranean theaters.
It did not. From around 1941 pretty much all the Swordfish did was patrol duties, at which it excelled. It was hugely loved by its pilots for its ease of handling, reliability & toughness. My dad flew them off escort carriers in the Atlantic, the conditions were unflyable in any other plane but the Swordfish could do it. They didn't even need to sink submarines to protect the convoy, they just had to make them dive so they couldn't get within striking distance, because subs are so slow when submerged. Think of them as flying scarecrows.
Kamikaze - rough next step of unguided flying bomb.
Heh.
Well, the human guidance system depends on certain cultural aspects, but in the correct circumstances for those aspects, it performed more accurately than any mechanical guidance system available from any side.
I wonder how they think the Fairy Swordfish worked in the “background”. Ridiculously nonsensical statement. Punched far above its weight.
Good observation!
If the Wildcat was so inferior to the Zero as a fighter, how on Earth did Japan lose so big at Midway?
Look at it this way: Can you name ANY ship sunk by a Zero? Fighters don’t sink ships. Bombers and torpedo planes do. As sexy as a sleek fighter looks, as much fun it may be to fly, no matter how romantic the fighter pilot (with, of course, the de rigeur mustache and scarf!). . . The fighter has but two main roles: help your bombers get through, and stop the other guys’ bombers.
Brave fighter pilots strive to avoid having tiny .30 cal bullets shot at them. Dive bomber and torpedo bomber pilots, by comparison, deliberately fly straight into gunfire of calibers way, way bigger. 5” naval guns being one of the more common.
USS St. Lo would disagree
I'm not fond using their codename either.
Yes, it is only you hahaha
Yeh, you love a lot of what you think is clever chat, but all I heard is how you mentioned the Avenger in early passing and totally displayed no knowledge of the MOST EFFECTIVE OF ALL THE TORPEDO/DIVE BOMBER AIRCRAFT, THE SBD DAUNTLESS. It made the others look utterly pathetic.
Hey! HEY!😫 No fair!
They base camped Pearl Harbor and padded their stats early on.🤨
Goofy intro.....where was the Dauntless?
AAAA😂
> anti-anti-aircraft-aircraft
lmao
Yeah, Japan was being stupid trying to replace both of these with planes that didnt even fit on the same carriers. I know that would probably curtail performance a little, but better than than planes they cant even use. TF were they even thinking?
You go through that whole nasal, sing-song introduction, asking "What is the most famous anti-ship aircraft" of World War II and don't even MENTION the Douglas SBD? Must be defective mental equipment....
Where is *your* video?
I agree with your point but you don't have to be such a dick about it. Great video none the less.
@@joshmeads Being a dick about it is my contract. Page 4, Section 6, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 7.
@@jaex9617 I would tell you, but since I don't use crayons and finger puppets, you wouldn't understand it, so I won't waste my time....
You have zero content and an AI profile picture, who cares what you think or say?
sing song voice is very annoying