Not das Stuka, you say? The Mosquito, you say? You know what, you're probably bloody right, but we want to know why. Jump in our Discord server and talk our scalps off. discord.gg/qt68efP
@osp80 yeah, an armature engineer caught a denotator problem that would cause premature detonation when the pilots were still on board. Pilots were needed to take off, unfortunately nonene listened to the armature. Flying over airspace a random radio comms interfered with the detonator, safeguard prevented it from causing detonation, at least they thought. the armature told Joseph Patrick Kennedy Jr. jfks older brother to get off that plane as fast as possible. 15 minutes after the prevented interference a solenoid overheated igniting the explosives. That was going to be Joseph Patrick Kennedy Jr. last flight anyway. He was going to go back home, get discharged and try for president but he saw this opportunity and after hearing from his family jokingly one of these time your going to get killed, he took the volunteer mission. Joseph Patrick Kennedy Jr. died August 12, 1944 August 12, 1944 (age 29) due to an explosion part of Operation Aphrodite. "earthquake" bombs and the advance of Allied troops had already stopped construction on the site, to house V-3 cannon, by 30 July. In the end it turned out to be in vain. Edit: TH-cam censored part of it due to me saying explosion, and death in part of the same comment.
Well, if France, England, Poland, the USSR, etc. had had enough .50 BMGs mounted on everything that flew or rolled, they could have stopped the Stukas early.
The B25 should have been included in this top 10 list. It was a highly effective aircraft in a variety of roles. The Mosquito, however, definitely should have been the winner. The Stuka was only effective for one primary role early in the war, while the Mosquito performed every role asked of it, superbly, throughout the war.
agreed- as well as the A20 - the Germans were terrified of it. Came in low and fast , packing 6 50 cals in the nose and dropped 500 lbs bombs very accurately. They were also tough. They had to be due to their frequent role as ground attack below 1,000 feet. Friend of mine's father flew them in Europe. He saved all the flak shrapnel , which he could hear rolling around in the fuselage as they flew home, and saved some of it in a shoe box, which the family still has.
@@NokotanFanCentral The B29 had no fatal flaws. It’s American which automatically made it better than any foreign planes and it is fucking awesome because they are responsible for two cities into radioactive pancakes so I don’t want to hear your bullshit
I think that due to the varied roles that bomber planes had, you can't pick a single overall bomber. You need to split them up. Heavy, medium, light, fighter-bomber, torpedo plane. I also think the B-25 Mitchell deserved at least a mention. But I am very fond of this medium bomber so my bias is showing.
@@hillbillyscholar8126 Wrong, the B-26's where adored by their crews, and yes it was difficult to learn how to fly but when the pilots got past the difficulties then they loved them. I had the chance to talk with a group of B-26 Veterans while volunteering at the Airmans Heritage Museum at Lackland AFB, and each and everyone of those men praised the plane, some flew others after the War and wanted to get back to the Marauders over their new steeds. So your claim is pure false on aircrews hating the plane, it was the rookie pilots that could not handle the high performance Marauders, Jimmy Doolittle was called to inspect the B-26's at MacDill Air Field when all of the rumors about the plane and he crushed them, when he did his check out flight, on take off he shut down the #1 engine and flew the circuit and landed the plane with one engine then said "There is nothing wrong with the plane, matter of fact it's the best plane I ever flew!" and when he took over the 8th AF in England his personal plane WAS a B-26 Maraudar.
@@alastair9446 No aircraft of WWII could do that, not even the Ju 87 you seem to have a hardon for. As for accuracy, yes, it actually *could*. Operation Jericho for example was a raid designed to break prisoners out of a Gestapo Prison and required bombs being placed to break open the outside wall and the prison itself. Mosquitos were also used to target specific buildings. Several Gestapo Headquarters were targeted this way. In 1943 during the 10th Anniversary of the Nazi's taking power Mosquitos destroyed the main Berlin Broadcasting station while Herman Goring was giving a speech, taking his speech off air. Had you ever actually bothered reading some of the service history of the aircraft you would not have even bothered to type that line....
@@alganhar1 No, aircraft could do that? Then how did dive bombers sink Japanese aircraft carriers at Midway? That's a pretty small target moving fast. Dive bombing was the most accurate form of bombing in ww2, would you want to dive bomb in a wooden plane who's glue came lose in SE Asia?
“Dee eee havilland” 💀💀 its just De Havilland after Geoffrey De Havilland. Also you didn’t mention the fact that the mosquito was made almost entirely out of wood.
The problem with the Stuka that British pilots quickly exploited was its weak tail section. When Spitfire and Hurricane pilots concentrated their fire on the Stuka's tail they were almost guaranteed a kill even with the comparatively low powered .303 round.
The biggest problem was that Germans lost air superioty. And Stuka wasn't even suppose to go up against fighters. I more of a lost ditch effort to defend yourself.
@@alastair9446 No dive bomber was supposed to go toe to toe with dedicated fighters. But planes like the Douglas SBD and Curtis Hell diver were more heavily armored than the Ju-87 and stood a better chance, but they still needed fighters for protection since they were lightly armed and relatively slow in horizontal flight. If you look at the relatively delicate tail structure of the Stuka it makes a very tempting target for a pursuing fighter.
@@tamer1773 Well my understanding of the battle mid way is that dive bombers only got through because the torpedo bombers attacked first and pulled the fighters low. The figher could not climb fast enough to catch the dive bombers. All the torpedo bombers were shot down so it looks like even American bombers didn't stand a chance.
@@alastair9446 They were supposed to coordinate the attack so that the fighters, torpedo planes and dive bombers got there at the same time. It didn't happen because of radio trouble and it was early in the war and such coordination is difficult at the best of times. Torpedo Squadron Eight was destroyed because they had no fighter cover and they had to fly slow, straight, and level on their torpedo runs making them easy targets for the IJN fighters and shipborne anti-aircraft fire. In the later stages of the battle the various fighter and bomber squadrons were better able to coordinate leading to better results.
Random interesting fact: The B-29 was the first Aircraft to to use analog computers. The turrets each had one for spotting and making correction automatically for wind-speed etc... There was ONE fire control station and all guns could be maneuvered from there. and fired separate or at once.
Interesting fact: Germany built the First jets in ww2. The me262 and the AR47 (some others), it was the reason why we have our Military jets now. But it was built to late in the war.
@@coco_killua3057 Yep, I now. The Me262 was the Major one. We brought a crap ton of Nazi Rocket and Jet Scientist back to the U.S., gave them immunity to any war crimes, and put them in charge of our rocket programs to ensure Russia didn't get ahead of us with the German Scientist they captured. I always found computers to be the big winner, though, and the Allies were well ahead in that regard.
Americans: Hey look buddy, I'm an engineer. That means I solve problems, not problems like "What is beauty?" Because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems, for instance: how am I going to stop some mean Messerschmitt from tearing me a structurally superfluous be-hind? The answer, use a .50 cal, and if that don't work... Use more .50 cal, Take for instance this heavy caliber twin mounted lil' old number designed by me, built by me, and you best hope... Not pointed at you.
What a pity that you don't mention Ju-88. It's German's backbone in medium-bomber ,meanwhile played a crucial role in night fighters. One of the most versatile plane in its era.
No mention of the Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bomber, that helped scuttle the Japanese carriers and battleships. Britain's Wellington, Halifax and Sterling bombers gave great service. The G4M Betty was Japan's navy bomber (landbased) while the Japanese Army had a different bomber.
I think it's a mistake to discuss all these different types of bombers in one video. Should have a video for level bombers, one for naval bombers and one for ground attack bombers.
You could add the Swordfish to that list. The attack at Taranto harbour. The Norway campaign. The Bismarck to its credit before the USA entered the war. It looks obsolete. but it was quiet affective.
War thunder devs: oh cool, a survivable plane? Bet that would go into the game well Also the devs: *make the Wellington and Lancaster break if you look at it the wrong way*
@Justus Immelmann ME 262, remarkable aircraft. But nowhere near as versatile as the Mosquito, Hitler's biggest mistake was not making it a bomber or fighter bomber as intended. To me the Mosquito was the best and most versatile piston aircraft of WWII.
@@pouletbidule9831 I read the book. He was an amazing pilot and he obviously loved the Stuka. The IL-2 Sturmovik was, to me, the superior aircraft. It was so much like the A-10 in that it was heavily armored and a monster at ground attack. The Mosquito was fast, surprisingly durable and has a terrific combat record. It’s wooden design actually gave it light weight and great strength. It was so impressive that Hitler ordered it be copied, but the factory that was making the glue was bombed and that ended the effort
Never mentioned the Handley Page Halifax which reached squadrons before the Lanc. While it was forced to use RR Merlin engines eventually it got the radials designers wanted and became a loved and trusted work horse for Bomber command.
Yeah they built almost as many Halifaxes as they did Lancasters (6000+ to 7000+), but it seems largely forgotten by now. Also weird to avoid mentions of the Ju-88, which was produced a lot more than the He-111.
@@chitlika Canadian and Australian crews love them and preferred them over the Lank. It only stands to reason crews would develop a loyalty to what ever ship they flew. After all you counted on it to get home during every mission. Lots of room for praise for just about all the war birds from the era.
I would have replaced the stuka with the JU 88 or JU188 personally. Huge fear factor but obsoleted as soon as it met even early monoplane fighters like the hurricane.
@@markhorton8578 Low altitude attacks. Capable of bombing, but not carpet bombing. Most likely equipped with precision weapons like front facing cannons and or rockets.
@@stastu6484 he's not exactly wrong th il2 stormovich actually even has it in its name. It russian for attacker. Which is why it was made by illusiyan arms. Tupolov made bombers. The ju87, mosquito and il2 are attackers not rrally bombers very distinct difference in roles. As CAS is their role. Bombers are defined as 2 variant tactical and strategic. Strategic are high altitude and target industry, factories and refinery to slow down production. Tactical bombers usually target formations, bridges or naval vessels. The list lumps them all together which limits what is actually defined as bombers. Because according to this the thunderbolt would be a bomber as it destroyed more tanks on the western front than ju87s did. The PE3 would also be considered a bomber as it was instrumental in the eastern front as a heavy fighter that targeted German trains and supply convoys
If the Stuka was in there, then so should have been the Douglas SBD Dauntless. This is the plane that won the Battle of Midway and the Battle of Midway was the turning point of the Pacific war! It was a great dive bomber. It was an easy plane to fly and the pilots all loved it.
Stuart was a true vertical dive bomber. Both were good but stuart served from first day to the last and was more versatile.look af HUR he used the canon mounted stuart to devastating effect.
I could've sworn you'd pick the B-17 or Lancaster. The Stuka was at the very bottom of the list. By mid-war the only German bomber worth a crap was the Ju-88, which you did not mention.
@@TheOriginalJphyper the only flaw I know about the B-29 that the Lancaster and B-17 is the engine flap, so about you enlighten me and we can have a civil discussion instead of you continuing to be a jerk or have me search through 10 pages of Google to find what I'm looking for
@@liamgavinwells The B-29 was infamously unreliable. It also entered much later into the war. I'm not saying it's bad, mind you; the B-17 and Lancaster simply did more work.
@@TheOriginalJphyper fair point, but it did have a computer to help with aiming, a pressurized cockpit, more armor, and was able to fly higher thanmost aircraft of the time
The Stuka as I understand it was easy meat after the first year or so of the war. As you said it was then withdrawn from many areas. Perhaps you are correct for the beginning of the war. To me the best and most versatile overall was the Mosquito.
Yes, but the Stuka is not fighter and should not be targeted in the first place. The Germans fighter should be defending them. What makes them so effective is their abilty to drop bombs accurate. THey even had a automatic pull up from a dive in case the pilots blacked out. Play some air combat sim with old aircraft and you will see how diificult it is to drop bomb accurate. Divie bombing makes very accurate bombing. Just look at the battle of midway, those were dive bombers that did the damage, the torpodo bombers wre all shot down.
The B17 long range payload was 4000 lbs which was the same as a long range Mosquito. The Stuka was finished after 1940 in Western Europe,. The Mitchell was used extensively but the Lancaster was the most versatile heavy bomber of the war with long range and highest payload ie more than 5 times what the B17 could carry over Germany.
B-17 did not fly night sorties/raids and the crew/aircraft had very low survival rates consequently. That is to say, German aces hated flying shift roster, so they kept normal 9-5 availability priority being heroes and privileged sobs. So teh B-17s were basically cannon fodder for der dumbkopfs and their easy marks
I may have my aircraft backwards but the B-25 was most useful in specialized roles. It was a great plane but couldn't carry the paloads when necessary. One mission made it worth the cost cost of the entire production: the Tokyo raid. It boosted American morale and it reminded Tokyo yhat you can run but you cannot hide. Their sense of invincibility was knocked down a few notches when it needed to be.. Excuse the spelling, I seem to be losing my sight.
Most effective have to be "De Havilland DH 98 Mosquito", Mostly because where most of the other planes only could do a couple of different tasks each, the "Mosquito" was practically a swiss army knife with wings. Besides, at least for me, it's the most beautiful WW2 plane ever.
Love how for every other bomber he gives it a nice intro, and when the Lancaster comes around he flips over to "blowing civilians limb from limb" Cheers for that one
He was wrong, the Lancaster burned it's victims to death with 18 canisters of 256 incendiary bombs, after blowing of the roofs of every house on the street with a cookie
Liberty Prime - Unfortunately he is in many ways correct. This was as a result of the controversial tactics of ‘Bomber’ Harris. The debate still rumbles on but the tactic of area bombing was used and did kill many civilians, however they started it with the ‘Blitz’ in England which killed many thousands of British civilians!! There’s a Brit expression, If you play with the big boys in the playground don’t be surprised when you get a bloody nose!’
Unfortunate and uncharacteristic editorializing. This is the opposite of objective reporting/documentation. Please refrain from such in the future. It's cheap and unprofessional.
maddmatt55 Definitely controversial and horrible. But war is horrible and brutal, and with a total war like WWII it’s hard to apply normal moral standards to decide what was right and wrong. The British were doing what they felt was necessary to defeat their enemy and this included brutal tactics, but this was no different than any other country during the war. They did some awful things, like bombing civilians. But clearly nowhere near as terrible as the atrocities committed by Germany, who were the perpetrators of the war after all.
B-24 and Lancasters are my two favorites, simply because of the split tail... allowing the dorsal turrets to fire direct aft. This means you have the dorsal, tail and belly turrets all able to cover direct aft. which makes for a savage combo.
As for bombers, there's the B-29 and "other." Enormous (for the day) bomb loads, and very long distance capability put it in a league, a world, all its own.
The SBD Dauntless, the plane that took out four Japanese carriers at the Battle of Midway, belongs on the list and as dive bombers go, was superior to the Stuka.
Aichi D3A 'Val' hit with 3 (250 kg) bombs on Yorktown her speed drop to 0 knots and sank a Battleship Arizona with only 4 bombs, SBD Dauntless hit with 4 (450 kg) bombs on Hiryu her speed is still fast at 30 knots (like the others carrier). So D3A Val is effective than SBD Dauntless.
Well, if you insist comparing bombers with entirely different roles, you might consider the most versatile bombers, able to do almost all of those tasks. From the axis, the Junkers 88 (not 87!) is one of the best candidates. Its not the perfect bomber, vulnerable defenses and less useful for long-range and strategic bombing. When you study his history, you will be amazed with its versatile nature, almost capable of doing every task, drawing the attention of the allies when they managed to capture one. Besides, it was partially designed by americans.
@@Jd-fors They didn't *need* them. They required an aircraft that could directly support the troops in fighting, no need for big and sluggish 4 engine bombers to hit a tank or a concentration of troops at the front lines, etc.
British soldiers have always had the best sense of humor. Here's a witty little thing written by a British soldier during WWI: The only way to be here is to be philosophical. We have evolved a philosophy accordingly. What do you think of it? If you are a soldier, you are either: (1) at home or (2) at the Front. If (1), you needn’t worry. If (2), you are either (1) out of the danger zone or (2) in it. If (1), you needn’t worry. If (2), you are either (1) not hit, or (2) hit. If (1), you needn’t worry. If (2) you are either (1) trivial or (2) dangerous. If (1), you needn’t worry. If (2), you either (1) live or (2) die. If you live, you needn’t worry: and - If you die, YOU CAN’T WORRY!! So why worry?
It was also meant to drop the atomic bombs but America wanted all the glory so they had to heavily modify a b29 to carry it but a lancast didn't need any modifications
@@sicsempertyrannis688 the raf was in the Pacific and had a few bombers there that could drop the atomic bomb but America didn't, a regular b29 couldn't carry it and had to be heavily modified to carry it. America didn't really care when the war ended because Britain could have dropped the bomb months earlier than America but they wanted all the glory so refused to let the raf drop it
We're all missing one thing, the fairey sword fish, Also we all know the mosquito is way better, had longer range, was faster, more agile, easier to repair, better armed, more bomb capacity and was insanely good
@@matthewwade1115 the Pathfinders used Mossies, they flew a huge number of low-level daylight precision raids, the Berlin Express and intruder night fighting too which involved loitering near enemy airfields. 7,700 were built, there was only so much reconnaissance, the early order of 50 was switched to 30 of the night fighter variant. They were hard to catch.
I just love the fact that dehavilland made a wooden light bomber with the speed and flight characteristics of a front line fighter, the bomb capacity of a b17, and no guns. Well on the bomber variant anyway. Let's not talk about the madness that was the tetse. What could go wrong putting a 25lb field gun on a Mossie?
Just a thought, the MOSSIE could carry the same bomb load as the b 17 at twice the speed. Back refuel, rearm and go back out for a second sortie before the B17s came home.. We made the same mistake, build huge aircraft and giving the Germans a huge gift of scrap aluminium, instead of a simple Wooden Wonder. Ok some extra firewood when they got one.
@@tomlucas4890 The Mossie didn't have the same range the B-17 did (1,300 miles versus 2,000). A Mosquito would be flying on fumes trying to bomb eastern Germany (London-Berlin is 1,110 miles round trip, for example) from England. After France was recaptured that wasn't a concern.
@@grahamjohnson7412 Mosquito could reach Berlin no problem and act as defensive screen for bombers over Germany, shooting German nightfighters down at will.
@@tomlucas4890 The B-17 could actually carry twice the bomb load of a Mosquito. 4,000 was typical for long range missions but 8,000 was possible for shorter range ones, such as across the channel to Normandy. That being said, they're both great, but for different reasons. For a large convoy of bombers laying waste to a large area during the day, you'd want something like a B-17, armed and armored to the teeth and carrying a shitload of bombs. For a fast in, fast out more focused strike at night, you'd take a Mosquito. Fast as hell. Unarmed, but not a huge issue at night. Can't devastate a huge area, but anything near where the single bomb *does* hit is simply going to cease to exist.
I”m a little surprised that B-25 wasn’t mentioned. Of the aircraft mentioned, I would have given the most versatile to the mosquito. Although the Stuka was a good aircraft, and did contribute tremendously to Germany’s war effort, it didn’t have anywhere near the versatility of the mosquito.
@@thephlyingphish5104Beligerants made all sorts of limited run aircraft that were impracticle during the war. Very few made, over-optomized for a role that it could only carry out with no opposition, but in the Nazi case thrills the Werhaboo to no end.
@@johnbrowning8785 Ahh, the old "youre a werhaboo!" if someone doesnt agree with you. Thats todays world we live in. But, in the spirit of discourse I do not think the Stuka was techinally the strongest. It did however have a huge impact on the war and made Nazi Germanys blitzkreigs possible. The terror these planes caused was legendary. Not because they were super accurate (they were) but because of the air siren built into them. For the actual pound for pound best I would go with the flying fortress.
@@UthandolThey were only successful where the Nazis had aerial supremacy. They couldn't complete their mission in contested airspace, the Dauntless could.
@@johnbrowning8785 Its called combined arms tactics and it allows for specialized machines to excel in its intended area. Which the Stuka did. Now, it can be argued that combined arms warfare has strategic flaws in its doctrine and I would agree. But when it worked, the Stuka was king of dive bombers. And once more, it wasnt just the machine. It was the siren and the propaganda that accompanied it. If we are just talking mechanics then yes, the Stuka is inferior to the Dauntless.
People forget how special and important the B-29 was. It was a huge bomber capable of carrying a huge payload. It could also fly higher, farther, and faster than pretty much anything else. Oh, and it was produced in massive numbers. Easily the best heavy bomber of the war. It's development was more expensive than the atomic bomb.
@@thorswrath9151 The B-29's prototype cost almost 3.4 billion. This is just the prototype. The Manhattan Project cost about 1.9 billion. Don't spit random facts without doing research. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress
@@Rampant16 while I agree that the B29 was the best bomber, it wasn't the fastest or even the one that flew hier. The ju 86 could and did fly at hier altitudes.
I'm American, I love the 24 29and the 17. But vote for best bomber in the war goes to the Brits. The Lancaster hands down was the BEST!!!!!!!! It had range altitude armament and it could carry a train. It had a hell of a bomb load capacity!!!!!! When the 29 came out it had problems with its engines, an they didn't get that figured out until they came out with the B50. The Lancaster hands down THE BEST PISTON 4 ENGINE BOMBER EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nicely done UK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am a Brit and I love the Lancaster. But the B17 was similarly capable of lifting heavy loads, it's just that the loads consisted more of defensive armament. The bomb load was reduced to allow it to fly higher and faster, so it was more about how the planes were used that set them apart. The main difference was the Lancaster's huge bomb bay which allowed it to carry the really big bombs. The B29 was the only bomber capable of reaching Japan so must rank as the best but the plane's development cost was colossal.
On paper the Lancaster is an absolute freight train, but in practice it hardly ever utilized more than 1/2 it's full weight load. To fly at the same speed and altitude as the B17, the Lancaster had to forgo over half it's bomb capacity, so it effectively operated similar to a B17. So altough the extra bomb capacity sounds impressive, it was not utilized in most circumstances. It didn't have the same resilience and defensive armament as the B17, either. Cool plane no doubt, but I wouldn't give it that much praise, that bomb load mumbo jumbo is kind of a myth, and it wasnt nearly as survivable as other allied bombers.
The best 4 engine piston bomber ever? Dude, the B29 was a thing, and frankly, the Lancaster wouldn’t have been operable in daylight raids. The B17 was far more robust and survivable. Moreover, they generally dropped the same loads.
Trying to rank the bombers is difficult - not only are there different size categories, and tactical vs. strategic vs. maritime patrol etc., but technology advanced so rapidly during WWII that you also had different eras. The Stuka was highly successful early, against unprepared opponents. But it didn't remain in front-line service very long. The B-29 was the most technically advanced bomber of the war and continued to serve for years after. One thing all the bombers had in common was that none of them were very effective without air superiority. Even the heavily-armed B-17 and B-24 had unacceptably high loss rates when Luftwaffe heavy fighters could attack them freely.
The Stuka and the IL-2 aren’t bombers, they’re Attack Aircraft or CAS. I don’t know why they are on this list, as imo a separate video should have been done about the CAS of each nation.
Aichi D3A 'Val' hit with 3 (250 kg) bombs on Yorktown her speed drop to 0 knots and sank a Battleship Arizona with only 4 bombs, SBD Dauntless hit with 4 (450 kg) bombs on Hiryu her speed is still fast at 30 knots (like the others carrier). So D3A Val is effective than SBD Dauntless.
@@yoseipilot Aichi did not sink Arizona. The fatal blow was delivered by a Nakajima, fitted with a 16 inch shell converted to be an air dropped bomb. Yes the Aichi dropped Yorktowns speed to zero for about 20 minutes. That damage was quickly repaired and she then resumed speed. Since she got up to 25 knots, Yorktown was able to resume flight operations before the torpedo attack came. Without the follow-up torpedo attack, Yorktown does not sink, period. No one can claim otherwise. Hiryu and the other 3 (Kaga, Akagi and Soryu) were totally wrecked by the SBD's, through some of them still had engine power (Kaga lost engine power almost immediately, Akagi had her rudder disabled and she could only go in circles). All of them were abandoned and scuttled between 8 and 20 hours after they were attacked. Even after the torpedo attack, Yorktown was still afloat and it took a submarine to sink her. The Aichi Val, with its fixed landing gear, lack of self sealing fuel tanks and lack of pilot armor was very vulnerable to fighters and anti-aircraft. The SBD was much tougher, sometimes the SBD was used as emergency combat air patrol. Pilot survivability is not the least of the reasons why the SBD was far more effective.
A single Bristol Beaufighter attacked a German Naval HQ in Paris in 1942 dropping two tricolore flags to the cheers of the French population. (See Mark Felton Productions for details.) But yes, I have a soft spot for the Mosquito.
I enjoyed your video but I guess I am surprised at you choosing the Stuka as the winner. It was incredibly vulnerable to fighter attack. The Spitfire and Hurricane used to simply follow them down when they dived and shot them out of the sky.
Yes, nearly all WWII "submarines" were really just submersibles, only able to stay submerged for a few hours at a time, then requiring many more hours on the surface running their diesel engines to recharge their primitive lead-acid batteries. The first submarines worthy of the name were the German Type XXI, designed to spend most of their time submerged. But they were developed too late in the war to have any impact, other than their influence on post-war submarine designs. (Another example of the victorious Allies copying German wonder weapon technology that the Germans themselves were not able to produce at scale in time to affect the war.)
@@danielmocsny5066 A lot of things that people say were the allies copying the Germans are really just things both sides had but the Germans just got there slightly earlier.
I mean, many othe countries use it as well. If the Jansa-Plan would have been initiated, the Ju-86 would have been the first plane to be used against its country of origin, since the austrian Air Force had 1 1/2 of them (i say half since one was bought without engines or internal parts since there were plans of using domestically produced controls and engines, which were basically just copied italian ones. But those ambitions quickly became rather ointless, since there was a significant emotional event called Anschluss. they were used in some sort against the germans nontheless though when Bulgaria joined the soviets. by then they were pretty obsolete though
I find the Finns air force to be very interesting. They fought using aircraft from England, France, Netherlands, Germany, USA, and I think they had some Italian types as well (although I could be mistaken). There may be other nationalities I'm missing in there as well.
The B-25 was an extremely historical bomber, it was the first to bomb mainland Japan, you guys dissed a great bomber, plus it's the only bomber to take off from a aircraft carrier.
As much as I want to believe that there was "German bias" in this decision-making, I can't deny that the Stuka was seriously a technological feat. at the time of its release and well into the war. It boasted many features that aided pilots with the precision and ease of their bombing runs - such as an "automatic dive bombing system. Pilots set a predetermined release altitude for their bombs. As they peeled off from formation and pitched over into their dives, the system engaged as soon as the dive brakes extended." Another feature being a G-Force aid. When pilots peeled off from their bombing runs, the design of the Stuka's wings made levelling out from a dive very quick. This speed however, generates many G-forces which would cause pilots to pass out - the Stukas had a function built it to keep the aircraft level in the event of the pilot going unconscious. The system was even advanced enough to level out a plane that was mid-dive, if the pilot passed out and lost control of the stick.
If I had to go to war in any of those, it would have to be the Mosquito. As a bomber it could carry a surprising payload, and it's speed played a big part in it's low loss rate.
If it was difficult or dangerous or thought to be impossible it, inevitably, always went to a Mosquito squadron but they ended the war as the British plane with the lowest casualty rate, that says it all.
I think you missed out by excluding the B-25 Mitchell. Superb and versatile medium bomber. Took off from an aircraft carrier for the Doolittle Raid, skip bombing in the Pacific, mounted a 75mm cannon for anti shipping operations and well armed and armored. Served effectively in the Pacific and European theaters of war.
@@biohita He's dead so not doing much laughing is he? And just because he was successful in a Stuka doesn't make the Stuka any better, the P40 was just as good if not better in the roll it played and many would still argue it was obsolete after the 1st year of the war.
While the B-25 was widely employed in a variety of roles in the Pacific, the USAAF never used it in the ETO. The RAF did employ them, and the USAAF used them in the Mediterranean theater. The USAAF medium bomber in the ETO was the B-26. For all around best - I gotta go with the Mossie. A jack of all trades, and mastered them all. If I had to be in the heavy bomber in the ETO, I'd want it to be a B-17G. The Lanc was a great night bomber, but had puny self defense armament and was the hardest of all to bail out of. The B-17s staggered home with incredible amounts of damage, while the B-24 was fragile and prone to fires.
B-29 was so advanced for its time. Gotta be top five at the very least. It was fast, it was tough, it could fly high, it had a good defensive armament, it could take a beating, they even had pressurized compartments. That was a game changer for the pilots.
The B29 was awful. It kept catching fire, it had endless trouble with it's defensive armament. Only the cockpit was pressurized. It couldn't fly that high, which is why it was never it used in Europe. It couldn't take that much punishment either.
All true comments in this thread. The B29 was cutting edge design, had the most modern technology, but was rushed into service before many of its faults had been ironed out. Many crew lost their lives on what was an unproven aircraft, and we should remember their sacrifice. Ultimately though, this was the aircraft that ended the war in Asia and the Pacific. Many Allied POWs owe their lives to the dropping of the bomb.
Unreliable, its engines caught fire easily as their components were made of magnesium , which was very flammable. The computer controlled armament never worked properly, was difficult to mantain by its unprepared ground crews.Its development cost more than the Manhattan project.
The Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bomber sank more shipping in the Pacific than any other aircraft. Hero of the Battle at Midway and the Philippine Sea. Almost 6000 were built. It operated as the A-24 Banshee in the Army Air Force and provided close air support and cover for the American landings in North Africa. I would list it in any top ten list of WW2 bombers.
Aichi D3A 'Val' hit with 3 (250 kg) bombs on Yorktown her speed drop to 0 knots and sank a Battleship Arizona with only 4 bombs, SBD Dauntless hit with 4 (450 kg) bombs on Hiryu her speed is still fast at 30 knots (like the others carrier). So D3A Val is effective than SBD Dauntless.
Mosquito best for ordnance dropped vs times shot down. Lowest attrition rate of any fighter or bomber. Did every job it had to and did the most dangerous jobs. Just look at the raid on the amien prison, the number of V1's taken out vs ordnance dropped. And it was made of wood, carried a heavy bomber payload and only 2 crew. Germans awarded 2 kills for each shot down. Wood when metal was at a premium it was the first true fighter bomber in history.
When it comes to naval bombers - I have to say the Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bomber. I believe it is credited with sinking the most tonnage of any other naval bomber of WWII.
Yes, but did it result in an entire countries like Poland and France to be beaten in a few months where previously they could not have been beaten so quickly.
Actually, no. The Allied Naval Bomber that sunk the most tonnage during WWII was actually the Swordfish believe it or not. For example, while based on Malta the Swordfish of 830 Squadron sunk an average of 50,000 tons of enemy shipping a month. In the Med the Swordfish was heavily used in night attacks against Axis convoys and shipping, flying at night to avoid Axis fighters. Dauntless got many far more impressive sinking's, like the four Carriers at Midway, but for actual total tonnage sunk it was the Fairy Swordfish.
I think the mosquito bomber was honestly the best bomber/All purpose plane of world war 2. The drastic reduction of cost, the maneuverability of the plane, using abundant resources like wood, make this plane, all around fantastic!
There Was even a squadron of Lancaster bombers were set up to drop the atomic bombs just incase the Americans couldn't because the b29 was unreliable and could not carry as much
I was thinking the Dauntless changed the course of the Pacific war in five minutes at Midway. You can’t really say that about any other WW2 plane. Yeah, the USA was lucky but those pilots really put those bombs on target.
@@picklerix6162 Those bombs on target were critical to the turning of the Pacific war. What really was the death blow was the timing. Caught the Japanese aircraft carriers at the most vulnerable condition.
I would not have chosen the Stuka, it was completely outclassed by the end of the war. I would go Mosquito all the way. Could carry the same weight as the B17 while flying 400+ mph.
@Sparky Puddins 2 add on. A mid 2 late war = loss for Germany cus of the war they are fighting... I would say the stuka inadequate though because the IL2 existed and did the same job the stuka did but better...
@Sparky Puddins the Stuka was cannon fodder and required other forces to keep fighters off it from the very beginning of the war. Its successes depended on good tactical use and being used as an integrated part of the blitzkrieg attacks with ground units and air dominance. It was a part of a military tactic, and a successful one at it too, but without support is was lacking. The moment the target had air defence, they were blown out of the sky. Germany stopped using them against Britain in August 1940 due to the heavy losses. This is only 11 months into the war (or 16 months before it even started if you're a yank!), and only the second month of the battle of Britain, which continued until the end of Oct 1940. The Mosquito (which first flew in 1940, its design started before the outbreak of the war) was air defence, attack, precision bomber, recon, and 6lb autocannon carrying anti-shipping terror! Arguably the most flexible plane that flew in WWII. They would use their speed, and attack on their own with no support, deep into enemy controlled territory. Twice on the same day in Jan 1943 being sent all the way to Berlin (the whole of Europe still occupied) to successfully ruin celebration radio speeches for Hitler's 10th year anniversary. Incidents which made Goring incandescent with rage. Only one aircraft was lost. It was used by over 20 countries and remained in service into the 1960s. It was instrumental in liberating or defending even more countries you credit the Stuka with conquering. For timeline comparison, the Lancaster first flew in 1941 (after the Mosquito), the B-29 in 1942. So the Mosquito _is_ one of the early war planes. And no, I wouldn't defend the King Tiger. Impressive as it was, it was over complex, slow/hard to produce and unreliable. I prefer the Panther, but still wouldn't say that's the best tank of WWII.
@Sparky Puddins I understand, but my point is that the Stuka was only effective as part of an integrated operation, without ground and air control it suffered serious casualties. It was cannon fodder for the entirety of the war if used alone. Sure they did well in the various invasions in mainland Europe, but always as part of combined operations, often against much smaller or unprepared forces, and in the case of France, who actually had better tanks than Germany at that point, and a perfectly good air force, ineptly commanded forces. Stukas couldn't come 30 miles over the English channel and survive. The Mosquito crossed hundreds of miles of enemy controlled Europe alone and bombed Goring in Berlin (the most heavily defended city in Europe) at the height of the war! A major propaganda strike against the man who claimed Berlin wouldn't never be bombed. If the video was titled "which was the most effective military tactic in WWII?" I would whole heartedly say Blitzkrieg, but I think singling the Stuka out of this and claiming it was the best bomber is akin to singling the Panzer 3 from it and saying that was the best tank of WWII. If you'd said the B-29 was the most effective bomber, having effectively ended the war with Japan with a couple of nukes I would be very close to agreeing with you, just criticising it for only becoming operational in 1944.
@@juststeve5542 Mosquito was very versatile, and the term arguably is well used. The P38 came at the same issues from the other side starting as a Fighter then taking on all the same roles as the Mosquito as well. Bomber, Anti Ship, Night Fighter. As a fighter the P38 is better than mosquito and as a bomber maybe a little . The Mosquito gets a lot of credit for its 4000 lbs bomb load, which it should but it also needs to be remmered that it was 1 High Capacity bomb.. all or nothing while its more normal bomb loads were 2000 lbs often of 4x250's and 2x500's where the P38(G) had 2000 lbs load out P38(L) 4000 with various load outs from 2x 2000bs to 8x500lbs
Stuka was very accurate, As most dive bombers were. Comparing it against the big boysThat did more Carpet bombing, In my opinion, Is comparing apples to oranges. Still, Using your list, it would have been more middle of the pack if I were to pick the same list. My reason for pushing it down the list is that Each bomber's losses, Continued use and/or obsolescence and removal from use, Would need to be a consideration. The Stuka was a fine plane during the Spanish war and very early in the 2nd World War, but after that it became a sitting duck and a death trap for its pilots. As such, It's effectiveness plummeted, becoming machine gun and cannon fodder for fighters that had far superseded its capabilities.
Actually, even by the Battle of France and Norway, the Stuka was beginning to show its age against fighters like the Hurricane and Spitfire... now, the Battle of Britain? Stuka veterans would rather not talk about that...
@@EstonianShark perhaps, instead of writing "very early in WWI," I should have typed " very. Very, very early." ,,👍🤣 But you are correct, the battle if Britain was a disaster for the stuka and the beginning of a quick end to its service
The B-17 was the workhorse of the war. It flew more sorties than any other allied aircraft. Of the 1.5 million tons of bombs dropped on Nazi Germany, over 40% of those bombs were dropped by the B-17. World War 2 was a battle of production. It doesn't matter how technologically advanced German tanks, guns, aircraft and ships are if they couldn't make enough of them. The allies won the battle of production thanks to the B-17. It also took way more punishment than it's B-24 sister. And idk about you. But given the choice between the 2. I'd pick the one that's safer. You can't get the job done if you can't come back in 1 piece. The B-17 Flying Fortress. Probably the most important tool the US military had access to.
Odd! The Italians had the Piago-108 4 engine heavy bomber and the Soviets had the Petlyakov-PE-8, 4 engine heavy bomber. Strategic heavy bombers with the performances of the B-17 and Lancaster. Piago-108 was the only Axis 4 engine heavy bomber. Very few were built. PE-8 only 50 were built. Neither Mussolini nor Stalin had visions of strategic heavy bombing. Neither did Germans or Japanese.
Goring also said that the Italians made planes better than the Germans and actually wanted to replace the BF 109 with Italian MC 205s and Fiat G55s.. Funny how no one mentions Italy in any of these types of videos.
@@NeuKrofta might have something to do with the rapid fall of italy compared to the other axis powers. Italy made niche aircraft (Snyder cup?), granted excellent ones but still niche. No one mentions them due to the numbers game. When the Japanese out produced you its a good way to be forgotten. Then again somehow the F6 gets dissed and dismissed by every ones list. You know the "Ace Maker". The aircraft with the highest score card of any aircraft actually tested in the crucible of war. Maybe its be but i dont count superlatively trained Israeli eagle pilots downing 25 year out of date soviet aircraft being flown by half baked dimwits who thought god willed it as a real test. Thats more like an inevitable conclusion.
@@mikewaterfield3599 It isn't "niche" if they made the best planes the Axis had at the time. Isn't the whole point of a "Top 5" to highlight the best?
@@NeuKrofta best according to what though? kill count? win loss ratio? battlefield impact? JU87s were objectively crap dive bombers compared to their contemporaries yet look at the impact? The zero was a terrible fighter again look at the reputation. Reputations are frequently not based in objectivity.
@@mikewaterfield3599 best as in actual performance and reputation among both axis and the allies that fought against or alongside them. Just because you are ignorant about them, or because people don't talk about them today does not mean they weren't good or were not highly respected during the war.
Right down to patchwork on the airframe. For real, the B-29 they captured had taken damage before so had been patched up, but the Soviets thought it was part of the design so they copied it too.
Really? France fell very quickly due to Stuka dive bombers. How long did it take USA to beat Germany with Thunderbolds and only facing 30% of the German army.
@@alastair9446 apples and oranges. Comparing France in 1940 with Germany, even German occupied France, is farsical. Thanks for the laugh. In reality, the P-47 could slaughter a Stuka while on it's way to bomb a Marshalling yard and blow up a bunch of trains or buildings or airfields etcetera, etcetera. The Stuka was only successful when the skys were clear of opposition fighters. It's psychological affect was very high though but that is more on the diabolically evil mentality of the German military than having to do with the plane itself
@@alastair9446Ah no. France fell because of superior German tank strategy. The Stuka also would have been pretty useless if the Luftwaffe didn't have fighter superiority in those early days. The P47 could do way more than the Stuka, even though it was technically a fighter.
9:13 has the wrong profile for the Mosquito. The "best" bomber of the war was the B-29 (it was incredibly sophisticated and advanced) but the Mosquito was the most versatile and was incredibly effective (If you're a pilot you want to fly the Mosquito) and while you might say it was the "best" overall, like the B-29 it wasn't critical to the outcome of the war. The most important bombers were the Liberator (because it was produced in such great numbers, was very effective and was crucial in the Battle of the Atlantic) and the IL-2 (the most produced war plane in history and crucial to victory in the all important Eastern Front). The best Naval bomber was the Douglas Dauntless (not mentioned here), not because it was all that great in any one area, but because it was just a great all around plane and could defend itself against fighters if needed (pilots loved it). Honorable mention goes to the B-25 (produced in huge numbers, and flown in all theaters and by every Allied nations, including the USSR via Lend Lease, and was quite effective).
Honestly the B29 is pretty much the king of bombers used in ww2. It was the only truly modern bomber by the end of the war with superior range and payload to its contemporaries. It also had a service ceiling well above the fighters which were tasked with intercepting it, and excellent top speed which made it essentially impossible to combat. There's a reason that the b29 flew long after the war and well into Korea. There's also a reason why the soviets copied it rivet for rivet. It was an awe inspiring strategic bomber, a quantum leap beyond its rivals and adversaries, and an innovative design. The only real flaw with it is that it came off the production lines in 43 whereas the b17 and b24 were prewar planes so they participated in some of the big early battles.
But technically its not, because it only came very late in 1944, so it didn't really have as much effect on the outcome of WW2. So you can't call it the king of WW2 bombers. And if you meant its the best bomber built during the period of the 2nd world war then you clearly have never heard about the Arado Ar 234. Its a German wonder weapon jet bomber and basically better in every way apart from the bomb load. And it makes up with the lack of gunners in the speed department. Its cruising speed is about 750kph or 466mph. Where the B 29 is a slow, massive target making it vulnerable to flak and German late war jet/rocket powered interceptors. And its gunners become practically irrelevant when their targets are moving at 800kmph or 500mph. Also, about the TU-4 (the soviet re-engineered B-29). Unlike America, the Soviet Union was destroyed both physically and economically by the Nazis. So they desperately needed a long range bomber, so they re-engineered the B-29 not because it was good but because it was the only long range bomber they could get their hands on at the time. It was also produced in limited numbers because of the cost. So what I am saying to you is that the B-29 looks really good on paper but in reality it had a lot of flaws. And also, please do your research before putting out statements that you overheard other people saying.
You missed out on the B 25 Mitchell. Many variants were made And operated in every theater of the war including Doolittle raid. On top of all that, they were a gorgeous plane to look at!
"On top of all that, they were a gorgeous plane to look at!" Looks like I'm not alone. :) I've always had a soft spot for that bird. Plus, she was armed to the teeth.
@@w8stral I can't imagine what you're talking about. Why, in the 70's I saw a couple of Mitchells do a shitbombing run once on a pair of dudes in white suits. As for being heavy and slow, well, that tends to happen when you put honest-to-Pete cannons under your cockpit. Firing artillery in flight tends to fuck with your shit. th-cam.com/video/cEek5IvGYKg/w-d-xo.html
Missed the US medium bomber, the B-25 Mitchell, used in smaller short range attacks in Europe, but a major player in the SW Pacific against both ground targets and for skipping bombs into ships. Although designed for medium altitude level bombing, in the Pacific, it often attacked so low that the bombs had to be fitted with parachutes to slow descent until the bomber got out of the blast radius. Likewise, a lot of the anti shipping attacks were carried out below the masts of the targets A number of them weree fitted witadditional .50 caliber machine guns in the nose, a nasty surprise for any Japanese plane finding itself flying head on to a B-25
Some of the B-25G carried 12 forward-firing .50 machine guns, besides the top turret and tail guns. The B-25G and H could also carry a 75mm tank gun for use against ships and barges. That is firepower.
Me, a third generation historical firearms collector and firearms historian: "Three-oh-three british" Narrator. an intellectual: "boasting ten browning three hundred three caliber machine guns" Me: ...
The Stuka was only good when there was nothing opposing it, where as pretty much every other plane mentioned was designed to crack on with the mission regardless of the opposition. I personally think the Mosquito should be the best as it could do everything not just well but incredibly well
Actually not, USA and UK losses for bombers were unsustainble. Only with the Mustang could they have a fighter escort and bombing became effective. But I don't think a Mosquito can bomb a tank in the middle of a battle without hitting his own troops.
D. E. Havilland, really? It's pronounced DER [with out the R!] as in Olivia De Havilland who was related to the De Havilland aircraft manufacturers here in the UK.
@@zabaleta66 It would appear you have literacy issues. As you haven't read my response or perhaps understood it. As I did say "DER [without the R].........
The Dauntless SBD US Navy divebomber, was crucial in the Pacific naval war. And if my memory serves me, it accounted for more tons of shipping than any other US aircraft.
US aircraft yes, but not Allied. That goes to the Fairy Swordfish of all things. That obsolete old biplane sunk more tonnage of Axis shipping than any other aircraft. Kind of remarkable when you think about it.
@@alganhar1 you're getting that from a web site that is a fan club. They're counting the Bismarck in which it was only a contributor and other vessels when it was only a spotter. It's notable success was Taranto. The Dauntless sank the Japanese navy-at sea.
Correction. The Avro Lancaster could carry the largest [conventional] bomb of /any/ combatant not just the RAF. Whilst the B29 could also carry the Gland Slam 10 ton bomb it had to do so externally on the wings, whereas the Lancaster just had to have the bomb doors removed to accommodate it. The 5 ton Tall Boy bombs, which the B29 could only carry at low level for short distances, were used by Lancasters of 617 and 9 Squadrons to sink the Tirpitz in Norway.
The B29 did more damage than all the Stukas, aside from the Nukes, the firebombing of Tokyo was the highest casualty raid of the war. The Stuka was a terror weapon and was primarily effective without air Opposition. The Hawker Tempest, and P47 were better ground attack aircraft.
The Stuka might actually have been better for the Allies, because its early success as a dive bomber may have contributed to Hitler's deranged requirement for subsequently designed German bombers to have a dive bombing capability. This created such difficulties and delays for the larger German bomber developments that it helped deprive Germany of an effective heavy bomber - and thus Stalin was easily able to safeguard his armament factories by putting them a modest distance behind the front line.
I think the SBD is very underrated considering how many tons of shipping it sank and it’s more than vital role in Midway. You could even go on to say it’s successor the SB2C Helldiver should’ve made the list due to it being able to carry 2,000lbs of bombs plus 8 rockets and it being the bomber trusted to help sink Yamato and Musashi.
How many tons of shipping eh? Guess that makes the Fairy Swordfish the best Allied Naval Bomber of the war, as it sunk more Axis Tonnage than any other Allied Naval Bomber INCLDING the SBD....
Well it's more of a misusage by the luftwaffe. There's no functional dive bombers in the world that can be useful in a strategic bombing mission... Rudel and co can still got huge amount of kill in their stuka.
and also glossed over the use of Barnes Wallis bombs that he designed such as the Tall Boy and Grand Slam - penetration earthquake bombs. One such famous raid was a raid using Lancs and Toy Boy bombs sunk the mighty battle ship the Turpitz - tied up in heavily defended Norweagen Flord.
Also forgot to mention that the Lancaster was meant to drop the atomic bombs in the first place as it didn't require any modifications to do so unlike the b29
Easy, the best was the de Havilland Mosquito. Range & load equal to the big bomber, cheap and to fast to catch. The slow Stuka was almost obsolete from start! More a propaganda tool.
@@ianlowery6014 so was the mossie, which carried the bouncing bombs to break the walls of Amiens prison, and also they were used as pathfinder aircraft, to mark targets for the main bomber force
I would put in a word for the Wellington, in production from 1937-1945. It served in other roles apart from long range bombing, being used for anti submarine and magnetic mine clearance.
The stuka was very effective in the early years. But part of what makes a bomber great or effective is longevity to. If you can you are able to upgrade and still make your current bomber relevant its going to be less hassle in the long run during a war. As its expensive designing and building that bombers successor even if you incorporate designs from its predecessor to aid with simplification processes. As war time adds at a lot of unneeded stress for a military's r&d's department and well we can end up with rushed projects like the Panther and Tiger as early panthers well had a tendency to catch fire as soon it drove off the tran ramps to the front. Or certain gearbox issue with Tigers. So the Stuka is not the best because its wasn't very adaptable and was very slow so it had plenty of time to get shot down before it committed to a dive they were only fast while diving. So they could be exploited easily. Yes the sturmovik was slow to but it had the option to fire rockets meaning it didn't have to dive. It was also alot more rugged than a stuka probably come parable to a p47 thunderbolt. Also in the hands of skilled pilot the Sturmovik could have been a better dog fighter than a stuka to even the dauntless was . Although the B17 couldn't ultimately live up to the not needing an escort expectation. It did live up to its name and even when B17s were getting hit the hardest the defending german fighters still were in for a fight the pilots new the Flying Fortress weren't push overs. And I think there ruggedness and defensive firepower alone saved many crews to. As even with the 10 percent losses they were taking it could have been a lot worse and then when proper escorts like the p51s came into play they were only rivaled in the destructive abilities of bombers from allied nations. And only really out performed by its cousin the Liberator and successor Super Fortress. Yes they all have their own category's to compare to. But the Stuka was one of the pioneers of tactical dive bombers but was quickly out matched and out paced. That even by the Battle of Britain it became woefully obsolete. Its still had it uses as the war went on but It when from being a thing of total fear to a very dangerous nusance. Yes to say anyone isn't afraid of the stuka is lying lol. But it became a known fear that gradually became less threatening over time as the allies gained air superiority. and as aa became more powerful and advanced the hunter became the hunted and it became more of a stuka running the gauntlet than dominating the skies anymore.
I would give honorable mention at least to 2 more extremely effective dive bombers of the ww2: Douglas SBD "Dauntless, most famous for turning the tide of Pacific war in 15 minutes at battle of Midway, but generally very effective ship-killer throughout the war. Aichi D3A "Val", responsible for quite many early allied losses in the Pacific war, only overshadowed once Japan lost air superiority.
@Thomas Atwood To be fair, the Nazis wasting a lot of their manpower and materiel against the soviets was also huge... but I think the constant pressure on the german production capacity (especially oil and ball bearings and such) had a bigger impact than the actual numbers show (I believe that production remained high for a time despite the round the clock campaign). The pressure forced germany to take actions like moving production to underground facilities or farther out of range, diverting effort and manpower to protect the targets, which had to hamper their war efforts. Also, it pissed off Hitler so he wasted more effort on weapons to strike back at the allies instead of concentrating on more efficient uses of their military capacity... so basically Hitler being an unhinged nut-job won the war in europe - but I still stand for the Flying Fortress and the Lanc being key to victory.
The Lancaster was definitely a good heavy bomber--long range, heavy bomb load, decent speed. Its only weakness was the lack of a belly turret, which made it vulnerable to German night fighters.
@@galoon yah, and thats a pretty serious weak point.I wouldn't have chosen to be on a bomber crew during ww2, but if I had to - gimmie that b-29 haha for what its worth, my grampa flew b-24 liberators (mostly) in the pacific. he didn't see any combat, he ferried them from bases in the US out to depots all over the pacific. Said it was a good smooth plane for what thats worth
Stuka was effective where there was ABSOLUTE air superiority... During The Battle Of Britain they were extremely easy targets for RAF. I believe B-17 was one of the most efective WW2 Bombers bcs it held its ground against Luftwaffe in day light raids, under heavy fire until the end of the war.
![[Live] ศึกมหึมันส์มวยไทยสังเวียนเดือด เวทีมวยชั่วคราวสวนสยาม | จันทร์ 30 กันยายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pM1k6f7JXUc/mqdefault.jpg)
Not das Stuka, you say? The Mosquito, you say? You know what, you're probably bloody right, but we want to know why. Jump in our Discord server and talk our scalps off. discord.gg/qt68efP
I love Soviet union army so I say I love its plans
Das stuka!!!
I watched another doco, where they said if the allies had built only mosquito bombers they would have been more effective and lost far fewer air crew.
@Marshall Georgy Zhukov-Hero of the Soviet Union - knowing this chap , he'll choose the Matilda Mk 1 tank as the best of the best !!!!!!!
@@pammotorsport9743 the other side of the coin is probably , if the Germans would have had the FW 190 a few years earlier ....
Nobody:
American engineers: see that bunker over there, make it fly
Testing phases: *Jackass theme plays*
@osp80 yeah, an armature engineer caught a denotator problem that would cause premature detonation when the pilots were still on board. Pilots were needed to take off, unfortunately nonene listened to the armature. Flying over airspace a random radio comms interfered with the detonator, safeguard prevented it from causing detonation, at least they thought. the armature told Joseph Patrick Kennedy Jr. jfks older brother to get off that plane as fast as possible. 15 minutes after the prevented interference a solenoid overheated igniting the explosives. That was going to be Joseph Patrick Kennedy Jr. last flight anyway. He was going to go back home, get discharged and try for president but he saw this opportunity and after hearing from his family jokingly one of these time your going to get killed, he took the volunteer mission. Joseph Patrick Kennedy Jr. died August 12, 1944 August 12, 1944 (age 29) due to an explosion part of Operation Aphrodite.
"earthquake" bombs and the advance of Allied troops had already stopped construction on the site, to house V-3 cannon, by 30 July. In the end it turned out to be in vain.
Edit: TH-cam censored part of it due to me saying explosion, and death in part of the same comment.
@osp80 Why havent I heard about this before? Sounds neat :D
I know, look up the b-36 peacemaker, it was a post ww2 bomber and was MASSIVE.
@@patricksedler9697 big enough that it could have dropped B-17 fuselages as bombs from its bays. Absolutely beautiful.
When Americans see a vehicle or a plane the first thing we think is “How many .50 cals you think we can put in there?”
Us Americans are just like fuck it and let’s put .50 cals where ever we can stuff them in
They’re worse with ships and 40mm bofors and 20mm Oerlikon...so many aa barrels
Hell yeah 😎 Why use a rifl caliber to poke holes when you can saw it off with a 50?
Why poke holes with a 303 when you can Saw with a 50😁?
Well, if France, England, Poland, the USSR, etc. had had enough .50 BMGs mounted on everything that flew or rolled, they could have stopped the Stukas early.
The B25 should have been included in this top 10 list. It was a highly effective aircraft in a variety of roles. The Mosquito, however, definitely should have been the winner. The Stuka was only effective for one primary role early in the war, while the Mosquito performed every role asked of it, superbly, throughout the war.
agreed- as well as the A20 - the Germans were terrified of it. Came in low and fast , packing 6 50 cals in the nose and dropped 500 lbs bombs very accurately. They were also tough. They had to be due to their frequent role as ground attack below 1,000 feet. Friend of mine's father flew them in Europe. He saved all the flak shrapnel , which he could hear rolling around in the fuselage as they flew home, and saved some of it in a shoe box, which the family still has.
@@billthehat6973 The Boston was the bomber and the Havoc (both A20) was an intruder and night fighter.
The Stuka did fine against defenceless civilians as soon as there were any fighters about they were shot down like flies
@@timpreston459 A tank is a defenceless citizen, okay? Any bomber is shot down like flies against fighters.
I believe the Doolittle Raid was B25 Mitchell. Excellent bomber
Him “the Stuka dive bomber is the best”
Me in my head “but can it carry an atomic bomb?”
Atomic bombs are really expensive, not to mention the B-29’s fatal flaw
@@NokotanFanCentral But...giant, beautiful KABOOM though...
@@NokotanFanCentral what is it’s fatal flaw I only see positives to it.
@@asolomon7402 there th-cam.com/video/TuKceC2Nxbo/w-d-xo.html that explains it
@@NokotanFanCentral The B29 had no fatal flaws. It’s American which automatically made it better than any foreign planes and it is fucking awesome because they are responsible for two cities into radioactive pancakes so I don’t want to hear your bullshit
The Dauntless deserves a mention too for its role as a dive-bomber in the Pacific.
@@jaystreet46 some of the planes listed were early war and eventually replaced. The Dauntless was very effective while in service.
@@jaystreet46 You could say the same thing about the Stuka, and most other planes really
Turned the tide at Midway, Coral Sea and gave The IJN hell at Guadalcanal. I would like to find out the tonnage of ships it sank in the Pacific....
@@jaystreet46 the helldiver is ugly and weird the SBD is way better known etc
That’s the one used for the Doolittle raids over Tokyo?
“The Stuka was very vulnerable to fighters” ig he never played war thunder
In 'real' life the Stuka couldn't climb for shit.
Even in War Thunder it's really vulnerable, ridiculous firepower, climb rate and turn rate
I’ve literally shot down a Stuka with a Swedish heavy bomber
@@sentientcapitalism3889 said by the fbi sounds legal
TheFireCreeper yessir
I think that due to the varied roles that bomber planes had, you can't pick a single overall bomber. You need to split them up. Heavy, medium, light, fighter-bomber, torpedo plane. I also think the B-25 Mitchell deserved at least a mention. But I am very fond of this medium bomber so my bias is showing.
Same here. Doolittle's Raiders certainly made the B-25 famous. Good pick.
Totally agree with splitting them up!
I would make an argument for the b-26 as it had a very high sortie rate and the absolute highest survival rate of all allied bomber aircraft.
@@hillbillyscholar8126 Wrong, the B-26's where adored by their crews, and yes it was difficult to learn how to fly but when the pilots got past the difficulties then they loved them. I had the chance to talk with a group of B-26 Veterans while volunteering at the Airmans Heritage Museum at Lackland AFB, and each and everyone of those men praised the plane, some flew others after the War and wanted to get back to the Marauders over their new steeds.
So your claim is pure false on aircrews hating the plane, it was the rookie pilots that could not handle the high performance Marauders, Jimmy Doolittle was called to inspect the B-26's at MacDill Air Field when all of the rumors about the plane and he crushed them, when he did his check out flight, on take off he shut down the #1 engine and flew the circuit and landed the plane with one engine then said "There is nothing wrong with the plane, matter of fact it's the best plane I ever flew!" and when he took over the 8th AF in England his personal plane WAS a B-26 Maraudar.
@@hillbillyscholar8126 you are correct. You said was not loved. Never said hated. Splitting hairs on both sides here.
The Mosquito was pretty good with superb speed as it had 2 Rolls Royce engines and it packed a pretty effective punch. So, she gets my vote.
But could it drop its bomber accurate. Like right on a tank right next to your troops without hitting htem.
@@alastair9446 No aircraft of WWII could do that, not even the Ju 87 you seem to have a hardon for.
As for accuracy, yes, it actually *could*. Operation Jericho for example was a raid designed to break prisoners out of a Gestapo Prison and required bombs being placed to break open the outside wall and the prison itself. Mosquitos were also used to target specific buildings. Several Gestapo Headquarters were targeted this way. In 1943 during the 10th Anniversary of the Nazi's taking power Mosquitos destroyed the main Berlin Broadcasting station while Herman Goring was giving a speech, taking his speech off air.
Had you ever actually bothered reading some of the service history of the aircraft you would not have even bothered to type that line....
@TheFatAmericans1 And your points relates to the argument how?
@@alganhar1 No, aircraft could do that? Then how did dive bombers sink Japanese aircraft carriers at Midway? That's a pretty small target moving fast. Dive bombing was the most accurate form of bombing in ww2, would you want to dive bomb in a wooden plane who's glue came lose in SE Asia?
is no one gonna talk about the RAF put "happy xmas adolf" on a big bomb
America once gave back the friendship medals gifted to them by Japan by strapping them to the bombs they dropped in the Doolittle raid
It’s was a secret for adolf
That big bomb was a 4000 lb bomb
It was a surprise party
Makes me think of that picture of an A-1H with a toilet bowl strapped onto a bomb rack to be dropped on Vietnam.
“Dee eee havilland” 💀💀 its just De Havilland after Geoffrey De Havilland. Also you didn’t mention the fact that the mosquito was made almost entirely out of wood.
Robots struggle with plain english
hello
i was mentioned
Hence the name “Wooden Wonder”
You don't need to worry about interceptors if you can just outrun them *taps head*
Germans were jealous that the British despite not having a lack of materials made such a wonderful wooden plane.
B-25 should have been included. Many variants and very effective overall.
My uncle flew B-25s. He and he crew were credited with the destruction of an IJN destroyer, broken in two by a successful skip-bomb attack.
@@lairdcummings9092 WOW!!! Thanks for sharing and have a Happy Fourth!
the B 25 not only was the 1st to attack Japan, they were the swiss army knife of the Medium bombers, some even had a 75mm cannon mounted in the nose.
@@gunfighterfd or enormous racks of .50 caliber machine guns... Absolutely devastating in the surface attack role.
Jimmy Doolittle's Raiders!! 30 Seconds over Tokyo!! 👍
The problem with the Stuka that British pilots quickly exploited was its weak tail section. When Spitfire and Hurricane pilots concentrated their fire on the Stuka's tail they were almost guaranteed a kill even with the comparatively low powered .303 round.
The biggest problem was that Germans lost air superioty. And Stuka wasn't even suppose to go up against fighters. I more of a lost ditch effort to defend yourself.
@@alastair9446 No dive bomber was supposed to go toe to toe with dedicated fighters. But planes like the Douglas SBD and Curtis Hell diver were more heavily armored than the Ju-87 and stood a better chance, but they still needed fighters for protection since they were lightly armed and relatively slow in horizontal flight. If you look at the relatively delicate tail structure of the Stuka it makes a very tempting target for a pursuing fighter.
@@tamer1773 Well my understanding of the battle mid way is that dive bombers only got through because the torpedo bombers attacked first and pulled the fighters low. The figher could not climb fast enough to catch the dive bombers. All the torpedo bombers were shot down so it looks like even American bombers didn't stand a chance.
@@alastair9446 They were supposed to coordinate the attack so that the fighters, torpedo planes and dive bombers got there at the same time. It didn't happen because of radio trouble and it was early in the war and such coordination is difficult at the best of times. Torpedo Squadron Eight was destroyed because they had no fighter cover and they had to fly slow, straight, and level on their torpedo runs making them easy targets for the IJN fighters and shipborne anti-aircraft fire. In the later stages of the battle the various fighter and bomber squadrons were better able to coordinate leading to better results.
Too right 8+303 verses one 7.92machine gun.poor tail gunner
Random interesting fact: The B-29 was the first Aircraft to to use analog computers. The turrets each had one for spotting and making correction automatically for wind-speed etc... There was ONE fire control station and all guns could be maneuvered from there. and fired separate or at once.
Interesting fact:
Germany built the First jets in ww2. The me262 and the AR47 (some others), it was the reason why we have our Military jets now. But it was built to late in the war.
@@coco_killua3057 Yep, I now. The Me262 was the Major one. We brought a crap ton of Nazi Rocket and Jet Scientist back to the U.S., gave them immunity to any war crimes, and put them in charge of our rocket programs to ensure Russia didn't get ahead of us with the German Scientist they captured. I always found computers to be the big winner, though, and the Allies were well ahead in that regard.
@@coco_killua3057 Both the US and the UK had operational jets at the end of WW 2
Yet Star Wars had B-17 type manned ray gun turrets for space battles.
@@LittleMacscorner As great as it was, the ME262 was a fighter, not a bomber. Out of contention in this context.
Americans: Hey look buddy, I'm an engineer. That means I solve problems, not problems like "What is beauty?" Because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems, for instance: how am I going to stop some mean Messerschmitt from tearing me a structurally superfluous be-hind? The answer, use a .50 cal, and if that don't work... Use more .50 cal, Take for instance this heavy caliber twin mounted lil' old number designed by me, built by me, and you best hope... Not pointed at you.
Meet the Engineer?
@@dovahkiin1210
Yes
Dovahkiin12 No, it’s meet the .50 cal
@@tregaming07
Nice
I like the take of the TF2 engineer, nice one
What a pity that you don't mention Ju-88. It's German's backbone in medium-bomber ,meanwhile played a crucial role in night fighters. One of the most versatile plane in its era.
No mention of the Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bomber, that helped scuttle the Japanese carriers and battleships. Britain's Wellington, Halifax and Sterling bombers gave great service. The G4M Betty was Japan's navy bomber (landbased) while the Japanese Army had a different bomber.
I agree about these aircraft too
I think it's a mistake to discuss all these different types of bombers in one video. Should have a video for level bombers, one for naval bombers and one for ground attack bombers.
You could add the Swordfish to that list. The attack at Taranto harbour. The Norway campaign. The Bismarck to its credit before the USA entered the war. It looks obsolete. but it was quiet affective.
No Wellington! A plane that was the backbone of the RAF Bomber Command in the early war. It could take enormous punishment and still survive.
War thunder devs: oh cool, a survivable plane? Bet that would go into the game well
Also the devs: *make the Wellington and Lancaster break if you look at it the wrong way*
Clearly haven’t played war Thunder lol
Except the ones that didn’t (they were very vulnerable to incendiary ammunition).
That is why Wellington designated only as "night Bomber"
Yes and it was never very good at it’s job. Being numerous is no guarantee of being good.
Stuka before the De Havilland Mosquito !!!!
YOU FOR REAL?
THE LIST OF THE MOSSIE'S ACHIEVEMENTS IS ENDLESS.
A TRUE CLASSIC .
@Justus Immelmann ME 262, remarkable aircraft. But nowhere near as versatile as the Mosquito, Hitler's biggest mistake was not making it a bomber or fighter bomber as intended.
To me the Mosquito was the best and most versatile piston aircraft of WWII.
Both the Stuka and Mosquito have long lists of achievements and they were both very good in their own right.
@@thegreatseprano9918
Mosquito was vastly superior
@@ravenmoon5111 ask rudel about that
@@pouletbidule9831
I read the book. He was an amazing pilot and he obviously loved the Stuka.
The IL-2 Sturmovik was, to me, the superior aircraft. It was so much like the A-10 in that it was heavily armored and a monster at ground attack.
The Mosquito was fast, surprisingly durable and has a terrific combat record. It’s wooden design actually gave it light weight and great strength.
It was so impressive that Hitler ordered it be copied, but the factory that was making the glue was bombed and that ended the effort
Lol “it’s in America so everything is supersized anyway” true
They must be compensating for something ;)
Virgile Patricot OR, that’s also supersized like the rest.
Which is why this is in English instead of German....
Naw, it's the rest of the world that's _undersized_
@@virgilepatricot2507 ?
Never mentioned the Handley Page Halifax which reached squadrons before the Lanc. While it was forced to use RR Merlin engines eventually it got the radials designers wanted and became a loved and trusted work horse for Bomber command.
Yeah they built almost as many Halifaxes as they did Lancasters (6000+ to 7000+), but it seems largely forgotten by now.
Also weird to avoid mentions of the Ju-88, which was produced a lot more than the He-111.
Disdainfully called Halibags by Lancaster crews
Exactly what I said.
@@chitlika Canadian and Australian crews love them and preferred them over the Lank. It only stands to reason crews would develop a loyalty to what ever ship they flew. After all you counted on it to get home during every mission. Lots of room for praise for just about all the war birds from the era.
The Junkers JU 88 should have gotten a mention In many ways almost as remarkable as the Mosquito Otherwise a good video
Better in every aspect than the He-111, I was surprised it wasn't mentioned.
Agreed, and thanks!
I would have replaced the stuka with the JU 88 or JU188 personally. Huge fear factor but obsoleted as soon as it met even early monoplane fighters like the hurricane.
Agreed ..... it was a more successful design then the Japanese Betty Bomber.
The marketing department was definitely rushed on that name ....
There is a difference between an “attacker” and “Bomber.”
Please explain.
@@markhorton8578 Low altitude attacks. Capable of bombing, but not carpet bombing. Most likely equipped with precision weapons like front facing cannons and or rockets.
This guy has no idea what he is talking about. He should stick to star wars
@@stastu6484 he's not exactly wrong th il2 stormovich actually even has it in its name. It russian for attacker.
Which is why it was made by illusiyan arms.
Tupolov made bombers.
The ju87, mosquito and il2 are attackers not rrally bombers very distinct difference in roles. As CAS is their role.
Bombers are defined as 2 variant tactical and strategic. Strategic are high altitude and target industry, factories and refinery to slow down production.
Tactical bombers usually target formations, bridges or naval vessels. The list lumps them all together which limits what is actually defined as bombers.
Because according to this the thunderbolt would be a bomber as it destroyed more tanks on the western front than ju87s did.
The PE3 would also be considered a bomber as it was instrumental in the eastern front as a heavy fighter that targeted German trains and supply convoys
@@stastu6484 me, mark, or the narrator?
If the Stuka was in there, then so should have been the Douglas SBD Dauntless. This is the plane that won the Battle of Midway and the Battle of Midway was the turning point of the Pacific war! It was a great dive bomber. It was an easy plane to fly and the pilots all loved it.
Under appreciated
Stuart was a true vertical dive bomber. Both were good but stuart served from first day to the last and was more versatile.look af HUR he used the canon mounted stuart to devastating effect.
@@kieranlillis7121 Who is Stuart? :-)
I would also vote for the old ‘Slow But Deadly’
@@galier2 I agree with you. I don't know the Stuart.
I could've sworn you'd pick the B-17 or Lancaster. The Stuka was at the very bottom of the list. By mid-war the only German bomber worth a crap was the Ju-88, which you did not mention.
Why would you choose the Lancaster or the B-17 over the B-29?
@@liamgavinwells If you have to ask that question, then you don't know squat about WWII bombers.
@@TheOriginalJphyper the only flaw I know about the B-29 that the Lancaster and B-17 is the engine flap, so about you enlighten me and we can have a civil discussion instead of you continuing to be a jerk or have me search through 10 pages of Google to find what I'm looking for
@@liamgavinwells The B-29 was infamously unreliable. It also entered much later into the war. I'm not saying it's bad, mind you; the B-17 and Lancaster simply did more work.
@@TheOriginalJphyper fair point, but it did have a computer to help with aiming, a pressurized cockpit, more armor, and was able to fly higher thanmost aircraft of the time
Should we not consider overall effectiveness of an aircraft for its historical events, such as the Lancaster's dam buster raid?
Sinking of the Tirpitz also
@JTS80 *B-29 😂😂 just one of em
@JTS80 class bomber, the death rate was horrendous though. Brave men 🤝
the effect of the only partial succesful raid was only temporarily...
I didn't know about this particular operation. Very, very cool.
The Stuka as I understand it was easy meat after the first year or so of the war. As you said it was then withdrawn from many areas. Perhaps you are correct for the beginning of the war. To me the best and most versatile overall was the Mosquito.
Yes, but the Stuka is not fighter and should not be targeted in the first place. The Germans fighter should be defending them. What makes them so effective is their abilty to drop bombs accurate. THey even had a automatic pull up from a dive in case the pilots blacked out.
Play some air combat sim with old aircraft and you will see how diificult it is to drop bomb accurate. Divie bombing makes very accurate bombing. Just look at the battle of midway, those were dive bombers that did the damage, the torpodo bombers wre all shot down.
It was because the germans lost air superioty. The job it was suppose to do it did well. It wasn't suppose to figh fighters.
And I’m sure there’s no patriotic bias in any of the comments from British armchair historians 😂
Germany's best Stuka pilot Hans Ulrich Rudel would have loved to argue your point this plane was ineffective after 1940.
@@slipslider9048 Guilty as charged. But then aren't we all biased?
Nobody:
The Front: "bommah"
Oi m8 ya got a loiscence fer dat bommah?
Sam G. Ahahahah nice
Im british and im now eternally depressed
@@BRFC.75 same
Sounds swedish
The B17 long range payload was 4000 lbs which was the same as a long range Mosquito. The Stuka was finished after 1940 in Western Europe,. The Mitchell was used extensively but the Lancaster was the most versatile heavy bomber of the war with long range and highest payload ie more than 5 times what the B17 could carry over Germany.
Yes, b17 was not a good bomber compared
B-17 did not fly night sorties/raids and the crew/aircraft had very low survival rates consequently. That is to say, German aces hated flying shift roster, so they kept normal 9-5 availability priority being heroes and privileged sobs. So teh B-17s were basically cannon fodder for der dumbkopfs and their easy marks
I would have mentioned the North American B-25 Mitchell
I may have my aircraft backwards but the B-25 was most useful in specialized roles. It was a great plane but couldn't carry the paloads when necessary. One mission made it worth the cost cost of the entire production: the Tokyo raid. It boosted American morale and it reminded Tokyo yhat you can run but you cannot hide. Their sense of invincibility was knocked down a few notches when it needed to be.. Excuse the spelling, I seem to be losing my sight.
Most effective have to be "De Havilland DH 98 Mosquito", Mostly because where most of the other planes only could do a couple of different tasks each, the "Mosquito" was practically a swiss army knife with wings. Besides, at least for me, it's the most beautiful WW2 plane ever.
Beauty is a subjective thing but from all of this bombers I would still say that the mosquito was the best one
You can say the same for Ju88. It is produced more than any other Luftwaffe bombers and it can do literally anything, including being a fighter.
and a mozzy carred the same bome load as the b17
At about 9:10 in this video they introduce the Mosquito but the silhouette shown is of a Mitsubishi "Betty" bomber. ?????
It is certainly a pretty craft, and if I could go back in time, I would have included it both this video and our video on fighters.
Love how for every other bomber he gives it a nice intro, and when the Lancaster comes around he flips over to "blowing civilians limb from limb"
Cheers for that one
He was wrong, the Lancaster burned it's victims to death with 18 canisters of 256 incendiary bombs, after blowing of the roofs of every house on the street with a cookie
Liberty Prime - Unfortunately he is in many ways correct. This was as a result of the controversial tactics of ‘Bomber’ Harris. The debate still rumbles on but the tactic of area bombing was used and did kill many civilians, however they started it with the ‘Blitz’ in England which killed many thousands of British civilians!! There’s a Brit expression, If you play with the big boys in the playground don’t be surprised when you get a bloody nose!’
Unfortunate and uncharacteristic editorializing. This is the opposite of objective reporting/documentation. Please refrain from such in the future. It's cheap and unprofessional.
At 09:12 you have incorrectly identified a different silouette as the Mosquito. I'm not sure which one but it is definitely not the Mosquito.
maddmatt55 Definitely controversial and horrible. But war is horrible and brutal, and with a total war like WWII it’s hard to apply normal moral standards to decide what was right and wrong. The British were doing what they felt was necessary to defeat their enemy and this included brutal tactics, but this was no different than any other country during the war. They did some awful things, like bombing civilians. But clearly nowhere near as terrible as the atrocities committed by Germany, who were the perpetrators of the war after all.
B-24 and Lancasters are my two favorites, simply because of the split tail... allowing the dorsal turrets to fire direct aft.
This means you have the dorsal, tail and belly turrets all able to cover direct aft. which makes for a savage combo.
Good point, I never considered that before!
Cheers!
As for bombers, there's the B-29 and "other." Enormous (for the day) bomb loads, and very long distance capability put it in a league, a world, all its own.
The SBD Dauntless, the plane that took out four Japanese carriers at the Battle of Midway, belongs on the list and as dive bombers go, was superior to the Stuka.
100% agree on this.
@@raysubsonic What about the 'Val'? Sank more ships than any other dive bomber.
Aichi D3A 'Val' hit with 3 (250 kg) bombs on Yorktown her speed drop to 0 knots and sank a Battleship Arizona with only 4 bombs, SBD Dauntless hit with 4 (450 kg) bombs on Hiryu her speed is still fast at 30 knots (like the others carrier). So D3A Val is effective than SBD Dauntless.
True but the val numbers for the whole war include its common use as a kamikaze and in many cases sbds were replaced by newer curtis helldivers
@@yoseipilot you gonna ignore the other 3 carriers that were easily sunk by SBDs?
The Akagi was taken out in a single hit from the Dauntless
Well, if you insist comparing bombers with entirely different roles, you might consider the most versatile bombers, able to do almost all of those tasks. From the axis, the Junkers 88 (not 87!) is one of the best candidates.
Its not the perfect bomber, vulnerable defenses and less useful for long-range and strategic bombing. When you study his history, you will be amazed with its versatile nature, almost capable of doing every task, drawing the attention of the allies when they managed to capture one. Besides, it was partially designed by americans.
No way can 2 engine bombers compete.Germany even knew they needed 4 engine bombers.
@@Jd-fors Germany did mass produce the HE 177 which had 4 engines (technically)
Agree the comparison could've been done better. And perhaps the 88 should've taken the 87s place. Cheers.
@@fyshi6226 It had 2 engines?
@@Jd-fors They didn't *need* them. They required an aircraft that could directly support the troops in fighting, no need for big and sluggish 4 engine bombers to hit a tank or a concentration of troops at the front lines, etc.
Somebody in 2020: DoNt MaKe fUn Of Ww2 MiLlIoNs Of pEopLe DiEd
Birtish ground personell in ww2: 9:41
One hell of a cookie
British soldiers have always had the best sense of humor. Here's a witty little thing written by a British soldier during WWI:
The only way to be here is to be philosophical. We have evolved a philosophy accordingly. What do you think of it?
If you are a soldier, you are either:
(1) at home or (2) at the Front.
If (1), you needn’t worry.
If (2), you are either (1) out of the danger zone or (2) in it.
If (1), you needn’t worry.
If (2), you are either (1) not hit, or (2) hit.
If (1), you needn’t worry.
If (2) you are either (1) trivial or (2) dangerous.
If (1), you needn’t worry.
If (2), you either (1) live or (2) die.
If you live, you needn’t worry: and - If you die, YOU CAN’T WORRY!!
So why worry?
Hello
@@magisterrleth3129 I wish I could copy and paste that optimism in my notes.But I'm too lazy
Yep, definitely British ground personnel making fun of World War 2...
The Lancaster, probably most famous for being used in Operation Chastise, aka the Dam Busters.
It was also meant to drop the atomic bombs but America wanted all the glory so they had to heavily modify a b29 to carry it but a lancast didn't need any modifications
Because there RAF wasn’t in the pacific, and there was already hundreds of B-29s in the pacific, they wanted to end the war as soon as possible.
@@sicsempertyrannis688 the raf was in the Pacific and had a few bombers there that could drop the atomic bomb but America didn't, a regular b29 couldn't carry it and had to be heavily modified to carry it. America didn't really care when the war ended because Britain could have dropped the bomb months earlier than America but they wanted all the glory so refused to let the raf drop it
@James, America didn't need to appropriate any glory...they earned it many times over.
By the way, "you're welcome".
@@jamesstringfellow1336 well shit, its literally the first nuke in the world. and it's ours.
We're all missing one thing, the fairey sword fish, Also we all know the mosquito is way better, had longer range, was faster, more agile, easier to repair, better armed, more bomb capacity and was insanely good
@@PBFoote-mo2zr probably because it did more recon, night bombing and anti-submarine ops than anything else
@@matthewwade1115 the Pathfinders used Mossies, they flew a huge number of low-level daylight precision raids, the Berlin Express and intruder night fighting too which involved loitering near enemy airfields.
7,700 were built, there was only so much reconnaissance, the early order of 50 was switched to 30 of the night fighter variant.
They were hard to catch.
wood have to agree with you! :-)
It's ironic that Guy Gibson the co 617 Dambusters Lancaster sqn lost his life flying on a Mossie pathfinder flight
I just love the fact that dehavilland made a wooden light bomber with the speed and flight characteristics of a front line fighter, the bomb capacity of a b17, and no guns.
Well on the bomber variant anyway. Let's not talk about the madness that was the tetse. What could go wrong putting a 25lb field gun on a Mossie?
Aircraft Designer: "So how many 50 cals do you want on the Flying Fortress?"
US Army Aircorp, "YES!!!!!"
Best part is that was only a standard B-17. The crew of Old 666 upgraded theirs to 19 machine guns.
Just a thought, the MOSSIE could carry the same bomb load as the b 17 at twice the speed. Back refuel, rearm and go back out for a second sortie before the B17s came home.. We made the same mistake, build huge aircraft and giving the Germans a huge gift of scrap aluminium, instead of a simple Wooden Wonder. Ok some extra firewood when they got one.
@@tomlucas4890 The Mossie didn't have the same range the B-17 did (1,300 miles versus 2,000). A Mosquito would be flying on fumes trying to bomb eastern Germany (London-Berlin is 1,110 miles round trip, for example) from England. After France was recaptured that wasn't a concern.
@@grahamjohnson7412 Mosquito could reach Berlin no problem and act as defensive screen for bombers over Germany, shooting German nightfighters down at will.
@@tomlucas4890 The B-17 could actually carry twice the bomb load of a Mosquito. 4,000 was typical for long range missions but 8,000 was possible for shorter range ones, such as across the channel to Normandy.
That being said, they're both great, but for different reasons. For a large convoy of bombers laying waste to a large area during the day, you'd want something like a B-17, armed and armored to the teeth and carrying a shitload of bombs.
For a fast in, fast out more focused strike at night, you'd take a Mosquito. Fast as hell. Unarmed, but not a huge issue at night. Can't devastate a huge area, but anything near where the single bomb *does* hit is simply going to cease to exist.
I”m a little surprised that B-25 wasn’t mentioned. Of the aircraft mentioned, I would have given the most versatile to the mosquito. Although the Stuka was a good aircraft, and did contribute tremendously to Germany’s war effort, it didn’t have anywhere near the versatility of the mosquito.
Agree, but they did not mention the American B26,25 and the A-26.
Well the voiceover pronounced 'De Havilland' "D E Havilland", so it's safe to assume British wartime aircraft aren't his speciality.
The Dauntless SBD was superior in payload, range, and survivability to the JU 87 Stuka.
Survivability, for sure but the R-1 variant of the stuka had a range from about hamburg to London, and could carry a 1000 kg bomb
@@thephlyingphish5104Beligerants made all sorts of limited run aircraft that were impracticle during the war. Very few made, over-optomized for a role that it could only carry out with no opposition, but in the Nazi case thrills the Werhaboo to no end.
@@johnbrowning8785 Ahh, the old "youre a werhaboo!" if someone doesnt agree with you. Thats todays world we live in. But, in the spirit of discourse I do not think the Stuka was techinally the strongest. It did however have a huge impact on the war and made Nazi Germanys blitzkreigs possible. The terror these planes caused was legendary. Not because they were super accurate (they were) but because of the air siren built into them. For the actual pound for pound best I would go with the flying fortress.
@@UthandolThey were only successful where the Nazis had aerial supremacy. They couldn't complete their mission in contested airspace, the Dauntless could.
@@johnbrowning8785 Its called combined arms tactics and it allows for specialized machines to excel in its intended area. Which the Stuka did. Now, it can be argued that combined arms warfare has strategic flaws in its doctrine and I would agree. But when it worked, the Stuka was king of dive bombers. And once more, it wasnt just the machine. It was the siren and the propaganda that accompanied it. If we are just talking mechanics then yes, the Stuka is inferior to the Dauntless.
Granted the Stuka was important as a type of flexible mobile artillery--something new at the outbreak of the war--but I have to go with the B-29.
People forget how special and important the B-29 was. It was a huge bomber capable of carrying a huge payload. It could also fly higher, farther, and faster than pretty much anything else. Oh, and it was produced in massive numbers. Easily the best heavy bomber of the war.
It's development was more expensive than the atomic bomb.
@@Rampant16 the b-29 did not cost more then the Manhattan project, which was just supercede as the most expensive military project by the f-35
@@thorswrath9151 The B-29's prototype cost almost 3.4 billion. This is just the prototype.
The Manhattan Project cost about 1.9 billion. Don't spit random facts without doing research.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress
@@Rampant16 while I agree that the B29 was the best bomber, it wasn't the fastest or even the one that flew hier. The ju 86 could and did fly at hier altitudes.
@@samuelgordino the JU 86 did diddly-squat during World War II though
I'm American, I love the 24 29and the 17. But vote for best bomber in the war goes to the Brits. The Lancaster hands down was the BEST!!!!!!!! It had range altitude armament and it could carry a train. It had a hell of a bomb load capacity!!!!!! When the 29 came out it had problems with its engines, an they didn't get that figured out until they came out with the B50. The Lancaster hands down THE BEST PISTON 4 ENGINE BOMBER EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nicely done UK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It affected the night bombing of Germany. Like the B 17, it could barely survive during the daylight.
I am a Brit and I love the Lancaster. But the B17 was similarly capable of lifting heavy loads, it's just that the loads consisted more of defensive armament. The bomb load was reduced to allow it to fly higher and faster, so it was more about how the planes were used that set them apart. The main difference was the Lancaster's huge bomb bay which allowed it to carry the really big bombs. The B29 was the only bomber capable of reaching Japan so must rank as the best but the plane's development cost was colossal.
Nope landcaster sucky sucky
On paper the Lancaster is an absolute freight train, but in practice it hardly ever utilized more than 1/2 it's full weight load. To fly at the same speed and altitude as the B17, the Lancaster had to forgo over half it's bomb capacity, so it effectively operated similar to a B17.
So altough the extra bomb capacity sounds impressive, it was not utilized in most circumstances. It didn't have the same resilience and defensive armament as the B17, either.
Cool plane no doubt, but I wouldn't give it that much praise, that bomb load mumbo jumbo is kind of a myth, and it wasnt nearly as survivable as other allied bombers.
The best 4 engine piston bomber ever? Dude, the B29 was a thing, and frankly, the Lancaster wouldn’t have been operable in daylight raids. The B17 was far more robust and survivable. Moreover, they generally dropped the same loads.
Stuka would be my LAST on this list- I'm american so I feel obligated to say B-17- but I'm going Lancaster- an AMAZING airplane - very effective
Uh no, I love the Stuka. Dive-bombing is so effective in that thing!
Trying to rank the bombers is difficult - not only are there different size categories, and tactical vs. strategic vs. maritime patrol etc., but technology advanced so rapidly during WWII that you also had different eras. The Stuka was highly successful early, against unprepared opponents. But it didn't remain in front-line service very long. The B-29 was the most technically advanced bomber of the war and continued to serve for years after.
One thing all the bombers had in common was that none of them were very effective without air superiority. Even the heavily-armed B-17 and B-24 had unacceptably high loss rates when Luftwaffe heavy fighters could attack them freely.
@Greatmcwhite Lancaster.Massive bomb load capacity. Mosquito.A true multirole combat aircraft.
As a War Thunderer I expected the Lanc to be last place 😊
The Stuka and the IL-2 aren’t bombers, they’re Attack Aircraft or CAS. I don’t know why they are on this list, as imo a separate video should have been done about the CAS of each nation.
The B-25 was one of the most built, and used in a multitude of roles.
I’m crying because you didn’t mention the dauntless
It's not a level bomber although the ju87 and IL2 are in here
Probably the single most important bomber in the Pacific theater
@@identitydixie1061 . Go tell that to the crews of Akagi, Kaga, Hyre, and Soryu.
Aichi D3A 'Val' hit with 3 (250 kg) bombs on Yorktown her speed drop to 0 knots and sank a Battleship Arizona with only 4 bombs, SBD Dauntless hit with 4 (450 kg) bombs on Hiryu her speed is still fast at 30 knots (like the others carrier). So D3A Val is effective than SBD Dauntless.
@@yoseipilot Aichi did not sink Arizona. The fatal blow was delivered by a Nakajima, fitted with a 16 inch shell converted to be an air dropped bomb.
Yes the Aichi dropped Yorktowns speed to zero for about 20 minutes. That damage was quickly repaired and she then resumed speed. Since she got up to 25 knots, Yorktown was able to resume flight operations before the torpedo attack came. Without the follow-up torpedo attack, Yorktown does not sink, period. No one can claim otherwise.
Hiryu and the other 3 (Kaga, Akagi and Soryu) were totally wrecked by the SBD's, through some of them still had engine power (Kaga lost engine power almost immediately, Akagi had her rudder disabled and she could only go in circles). All of them were abandoned and scuttled between 8 and 20 hours after they were attacked.
Even after the torpedo attack, Yorktown was still afloat and it took a submarine to sink her.
The Aichi Val, with its fixed landing gear, lack of self sealing fuel tanks and lack of pilot armor was very vulnerable to fighters and anti-aircraft. The SBD was much tougher, sometimes the SBD was used as emergency combat air patrol. Pilot survivability is not the least of the reasons why the SBD was far more effective.
In my book, the Mossie! What other plane could go and bomb Gestapo Headquarters on three occasions and allow the prisoners to escape.
and was made out of wood "fast as h' ell" + was true multi role precision fighter - bomber, pathfinder and recognisance
- also a true u-boat buster
The daylight raids on the Berlin radio stations in my opinion the best bombing raids of ww2
@@dafyddthomas7299 With the Mollins 6 pounder gun
@@thewildybeast On the tenth anniversary of the Nazis coming to power.
Cut Herman Goering off mid-speech (hee-hee)
A single Bristol Beaufighter attacked a German Naval HQ in Paris in 1942 dropping two tricolore flags to the cheers of the French population. (See Mark Felton Productions for details.)
But yes, I have a soft spot for the Mosquito.
War Thunder Realistic Allied Players: I'm in a tank I'm safe
Axis Players in a JU 87: *Loud Siren Noises* HA HA HA TANK GO BOOM
That's me 🤣🤣
I swear heavy bombers need to be buffed so bad
Rafael Enriquez Bruh don’t you hate when your Jumbo flips over on the B point?
Some guy in a chaika: haha i15 goes buuzzzz
Every Ju-87 is gangsta till it have LaGG-3 on its six.
I enjoyed your video but I guess I am surprised at you choosing the Stuka as the winner. It was incredibly vulnerable to fighter attack. The Spitfire and Hurricane used to simply follow them down when they dived and shot them out of the sky.
U-Boats popping up for air: they actually spent most of their time on the surface.
Yes, nearly all WWII "submarines" were really just submersibles, only able to stay submerged for a few hours at a time, then requiring many more hours on the surface running their diesel engines to recharge their primitive lead-acid batteries. The first submarines worthy of the name were the German Type XXI, designed to spend most of their time submerged. But they were developed too late in the war to have any impact, other than their influence on post-war submarine designs. (Another example of the victorious Allies copying German wonder weapon technology that the Germans themselves were not able to produce at scale in time to affect the war.)
@@danielmocsny5066 A lot of things that people say were the allies copying the Germans are really just things both sides had but the Germans just got there slightly earlier.
Side note : South Africa was part of the allies during ww2 but we used the junkers ju 86 in our air force against the Italians.
I mean, many othe countries use it as well. If the Jansa-Plan would have been initiated, the Ju-86 would have been the first plane to be used against its country of origin, since the austrian Air Force had 1 1/2 of them (i say half since one was bought without engines or internal parts since there were plans of using domestically produced controls and engines, which were basically just copied italian ones. But those ambitions quickly became rather ointless, since there was a significant emotional event called Anschluss. they were used in some sort against the germans nontheless though when Bulgaria joined the soviets. by then they were pretty obsolete though
tell me more about JU 86 i've never seen one
Yugoslavia was allied but used Bf-109s and Do-17ks against the Germans as well as SM-79s against the Italians. Go figure :).
I find the Finns air force to be very interesting. They fought using aircraft from England, France, Netherlands, Germany, USA, and I think they had some Italian types as well (although I could be mistaken). There may be other nationalities I'm missing in there as well.
I personally feel the B-25 should be on the list due to its use in the Pacific theater.
It is
@@archiecroft7114 No it isn't. The one in the video is the B-24 Liberator. They look similar, but they are different.
B-25 and B-26 are grossly underappreciated aircraft
Next time, eh?
The B-25 was an extremely historical bomber, it was the first to bomb mainland Japan, you guys dissed a great bomber, plus it's the only bomber to take off from a aircraft carrier.
As much as I want to believe that there was "German bias" in this decision-making, I can't deny that the Stuka was seriously a technological feat. at the time of its release and well into the war.
It boasted many features that aided pilots with the precision and ease of their bombing runs - such as an "automatic dive bombing system. Pilots set a predetermined release altitude for their bombs. As they peeled off from formation and pitched over into their dives, the system engaged as soon as the dive brakes extended."
Another feature being a G-Force aid. When pilots peeled off from their bombing runs, the design of the Stuka's wings made levelling out from a dive very quick. This speed however, generates many G-forces which would cause pilots to pass out - the Stukas had a function built it to keep the aircraft level in the event of the pilot going unconscious. The system was even advanced enough to level out a plane that was mid-dive, if the pilot passed out and lost control of the stick.
The wings were "kinked" to allow for a short undercarriage which was needed for rough field use
I guess anyone who would choose the P-38 as the most effective fighter of WW-II would choose the Ju-87 as the most effective bomber.
Strike Raid I wonder if they picked odd choices so we would write comments that helps the TH-cam algorithm?
At least u have a argument with the p-38 the ju-87 was ass compared to the il-2
@@justinSactown Well the Stuka was 4-5 years older and if im correct the germans didnt make major changes to it design over the years.
@@bendavy1816 Lol, and I fell for it..
Yeah I’d say B-29 is the best due to its near invincibility to being intercepted
If I had to go to war in any of those, it would have to be the Mosquito. As a bomber it could carry a surprising payload, and it's speed played a big part in it's low loss rate.
and it was harder to spot on radar compared to an all metal aircraft of a similar size. wood and fabric are poor radar reflectors
A Mosquito also had the most successful sortes of allied bombers
If it was difficult or dangerous or thought to be impossible it, inevitably, always went to a Mosquito squadron but they ended the war as the British plane with the lowest casualty rate, that says it all.
I would go with the b-29 because of its insane altitude, distance, armor, and payload.
I think you missed out by excluding the B-25 Mitchell. Superb and versatile medium bomber. Took off from an aircraft carrier for the Doolittle Raid, skip bombing in the Pacific, mounted a 75mm cannon for anti shipping operations and well armed and armored. Served effectively in the Pacific and European theaters of war.
Yes they didn't include the B-25 but included the Stuka which was obsolete by the start of the war? Yikes!
@@robbylock1741 Hans Ulrich Rudel laughs at you.
@@biohita He's dead so not doing much laughing is he? And just because he was successful in a Stuka doesn't make the Stuka any better, the P40 was just as good if not better in the roll it played and many would still argue it was obsolete after the 1st year of the war.
While the B-25 was widely employed in a variety of roles in the Pacific, the USAAF never used it in the ETO. The RAF did employ them, and the USAAF used them in the Mediterranean theater. The USAAF medium bomber in the ETO was the B-26.
For all around best - I gotta go with the Mossie. A jack of all trades, and mastered them all. If I had to be in the heavy bomber in the ETO, I'd want it to be a B-17G. The Lanc was a great night bomber, but had puny self defense armament and was the hardest of all to bail out of. The B-17s staggered home with incredible amounts of damage, while the B-24 was fragile and prone to fires.
B-29 was so advanced for its time. Gotta be top five at the very least. It was fast, it was tough, it could fly high, it had a good defensive armament, it could take a beating, they even had pressurized compartments. That was a game changer for the pilots.
The B29 was awful. It kept catching fire, it had endless trouble with it's defensive armament. Only the cockpit was pressurized. It couldn't fly that high, which is why it was never it used in Europe. It couldn't take that much punishment either.
until it caugt fire
All true comments in this thread. The B29 was cutting edge design, had the most modern technology, but was rushed into service before many of its faults had been ironed out. Many crew lost their lives on what was an unproven aircraft, and we should remember their sacrifice. Ultimately though, this was the aircraft that ended the war in Asia and the Pacific. Many Allied POWs owe their lives to the dropping of the bomb.
Unreliable, its engines caught fire easily as their components were made of magnesium , which was very flammable. The computer controlled armament never worked properly, was difficult to mantain by its unprepared ground crews.Its development cost more than the Manhattan project.
Not at all, it was expensive flying trash. Ever wondered why it wasn't used over Europe?
The Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bomber sank more shipping in the Pacific than any other aircraft. Hero of the Battle at Midway and the Philippine Sea. Almost 6000 were built. It operated as the A-24 Banshee in the Army Air Force and provided close air support and cover for the American landings in North Africa. I would list it in any top ten list of WW2 bombers.
gsandmang - excellent points about the difficulties faced by naval aviators vs their land-based counterparts.
@gsandmang The reason the US had the daytime bombing role was they got lost at night.
@@alejandrayalanbowman367 Well British women needed love to.
Aichi D3A 'Val' hit with 3 (250 kg) bombs on Yorktown her speed drop to 0 knots and sank a Battleship Arizona with only 4 bombs, SBD Dauntless hit with 4 (450 kg) bombs on Hiryu her speed is still fast at 30 knots (like the others carrier). So D3A Val is effective than SBD Dauntless.
@@yoseipilot The Arizona was hit in prime location,like the HMS HOOD...That is no way to judge..
So does torpedo bombers includes as bomber category?
If yes, i pick my swordfish. A timeless one.
*Sips tea
Bismarck: *cries from ocean bed
Think the Wellington deserved a mention .It was the Dauntless that turned the tide against the Japanese at Midway.
Mosquito best for ordnance dropped vs times shot down. Lowest attrition rate of any fighter or bomber. Did every job it had to and did the most dangerous jobs. Just look at the raid on the amien prison, the number of V1's taken out vs ordnance dropped. And it was made of wood, carried a heavy bomber payload and only 2 crew. Germans awarded 2 kills for each shot down. Wood when metal was at a premium it was the first true fighter bomber in history.
When it comes to naval bombers - I have to say the Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bomber. I believe it is credited with sinking the most tonnage of any other naval bomber of WWII.
Yes, but did it result in an entire countries like Poland and France to be beaten in a few months where previously they could not have been beaten so quickly.
Yes you are correct in i think it was 42 or 43
Actually, no. The Allied Naval Bomber that sunk the most tonnage during WWII was actually the Swordfish believe it or not. For example, while based on Malta the Swordfish of 830 Squadron sunk an average of 50,000 tons of enemy shipping a month. In the Med the Swordfish was heavily used in night attacks against Axis convoys and shipping, flying at night to avoid Axis fighters.
Dauntless got many far more impressive sinking's, like the four Carriers at Midway, but for actual total tonnage sunk it was the Fairy Swordfish.
I think the mosquito bomber was honestly the best bomber/All purpose plane of world war 2.
The drastic reduction of cost, the maneuverability of the plane, using abundant resources like wood, make this plane, all around fantastic!
And p38s
totally agree bro'
and with oboe navigation incredibly accurate
Without even watching, I'm going say USA, because, you know, we dropped two atom bombs.
Yes you say that but could have been England just as easily we just let you guys get the last shot
There
Was even a squadron of Lancaster bombers were set up to drop the atomic bombs just incase the Americans couldn't because the b29 was unreliable and could not carry as much
The American SBD Dauntless dive bomber and the Japanese VAL dive bomber were better than the Stuka.
I was thinking the Dauntless changed the course of the Pacific war in five minutes at Midway. You can’t really say that about any other WW2 plane. Yeah, the USA was lucky but those pilots really put those bombs on target.
PickleRix: Exactly. So what are they not on this list and the Stuka is?
the stuka had a huge impact on morale, that siren must’ve been terrifying
@@picklerix6162 Those bombs on target were critical to the turning of the Pacific war. What really was the death blow was the timing. Caught the Japanese aircraft carriers at the most vulnerable condition.
@@jameshanlon5689 nope Sir. They're not better than the Stuka
I would not have chosen the Stuka, it was completely outclassed by the end of the war.
I would go Mosquito all the way. Could carry the same weight as the B17 while flying 400+ mph.
@Sparky Puddins 2 add on. A mid 2 late war = loss for Germany cus of the war they are fighting... I would say the stuka inadequate though because the IL2 existed and did the same job the stuka did but better...
@Sparky Puddins the Stuka was cannon fodder and required other forces to keep fighters off it from the very beginning of the war. Its successes depended on good tactical use and being used as an integrated part of the blitzkrieg attacks with ground units and air dominance. It was a part of a military tactic, and a successful one at it too, but without support is was lacking.
The moment the target had air defence, they were blown out of the sky. Germany stopped using them against Britain in August 1940 due to the heavy losses. This is only 11 months into the war (or 16 months before it even started if you're a yank!), and only the second month of the battle of Britain, which continued until the end of Oct 1940.
The Mosquito (which first flew in 1940, its design started before the outbreak of the war) was air defence, attack, precision bomber, recon, and 6lb autocannon carrying anti-shipping terror! Arguably the most flexible plane that flew in WWII. They would use their speed, and attack on their own with no support, deep into enemy controlled territory. Twice on the same day in Jan 1943 being sent all the way to Berlin (the whole of Europe still occupied) to successfully ruin celebration radio speeches for Hitler's 10th year anniversary. Incidents which made Goring incandescent with rage. Only one aircraft was lost.
It was used by over 20 countries and remained in service into the 1960s. It was instrumental in liberating or defending even more countries you credit the Stuka with conquering.
For timeline comparison, the Lancaster first flew in 1941 (after the Mosquito), the B-29 in 1942. So the Mosquito _is_ one of the early war planes.
And no, I wouldn't defend the King Tiger. Impressive as it was, it was over complex, slow/hard to produce and unreliable. I prefer the Panther, but still wouldn't say that's the best tank of WWII.
@Sparky Puddins I understand, but my point is that the Stuka was only effective as part of an integrated operation, without ground and air control it suffered serious casualties. It was cannon fodder for the entirety of the war if used alone.
Sure they did well in the various invasions in mainland Europe, but always as part of combined operations, often against much smaller or unprepared forces, and in the case of France, who actually had better tanks than Germany at that point, and a perfectly good air force, ineptly commanded forces.
Stukas couldn't come 30 miles over the English channel and survive. The Mosquito crossed hundreds of miles of enemy controlled Europe alone and bombed Goring in Berlin (the most heavily defended city in Europe) at the height of the war! A major propaganda strike against the man who claimed Berlin wouldn't never be bombed.
If the video was titled "which was the most effective military tactic in WWII?" I would whole heartedly say Blitzkrieg, but I think singling the Stuka out of this and claiming it was the best bomber is akin to singling the Panzer 3 from it and saying that was the best tank of WWII.
If you'd said the B-29 was the most effective bomber, having effectively ended the war with Japan with a couple of nukes I would be very close to agreeing with you, just criticising it for only becoming operational in 1944.
It was outclassed at the start of the war. German Combined Arms against poorly led , trained and equipped enemies covered for the JU87 in many ways.
@@juststeve5542 Mosquito was very versatile, and the term arguably is well used. The P38 came at the same issues from the other side starting as a Fighter then taking on all the same roles as the Mosquito as well. Bomber, Anti Ship, Night Fighter. As a fighter the P38 is better than mosquito and as a bomber maybe a little .
The Mosquito gets a lot of credit for its 4000 lbs bomb load, which it should but it also needs to be remmered that it was 1 High Capacity bomb.. all or nothing while its more normal bomb loads were 2000 lbs often of 4x250's and 2x500's where the P38(G) had 2000 lbs load out P38(L) 4000 with various load outs from 2x 2000bs to 8x500lbs
Stuka was very accurate, As most dive bombers were. Comparing it against the big boysThat did more Carpet bombing, In my opinion, Is comparing apples to oranges.
Still, Using your list, it would have been more middle of the pack if I were to pick the same list.
My reason for pushing it down the list is that Each bomber's losses, Continued use and/or obsolescence and removal from use, Would need to be a consideration.
The Stuka was a fine plane during the Spanish war and very early in the 2nd World War, but after that it became a sitting duck and a death trap for its pilots. As such, It's effectiveness plummeted, becoming machine gun and cannon fodder for fighters that had far superseded its capabilities.
Too true
Actually, even by the Battle of France and Norway, the Stuka was beginning to show its age against fighters like the Hurricane and Spitfire... now, the Battle of Britain? Stuka veterans would rather not talk about that...
@@EstonianShark perhaps, instead of writing "very early in WWI," I should have typed " very. Very, very early." ,,👍🤣 But you are correct, the battle if Britain was a disaster for the stuka and the beginning of a quick end to its service
The B-17 was the workhorse of the war.
It flew more sorties than any other allied aircraft.
Of the 1.5 million tons of bombs dropped on Nazi Germany, over 40% of those bombs were dropped by the B-17.
World War 2 was a battle of production. It doesn't matter how technologically advanced German tanks, guns, aircraft and ships are if they couldn't make enough of them.
The allies won the battle of production thanks to the B-17.
It also took way more punishment than it's B-24 sister. And idk about you. But given the choice between the 2. I'd pick the one that's safer. You can't get the job done if you can't come back in 1 piece.
The B-17 Flying Fortress. Probably the most important tool the US military had access to.
Odd! The Italians had the Piago-108 4 engine heavy bomber and the Soviets had the Petlyakov-PE-8, 4 engine heavy bomber. Strategic heavy bombers with the performances of the B-17 and Lancaster. Piago-108 was the only Axis 4 engine heavy bomber. Very few were built. PE-8 only 50 were built. Neither Mussolini nor Stalin had visions of strategic heavy bombing. Neither did Germans or Japanese.
Japan did develop two four engined bombers: #1- Nakjima G5N (Mountain Recess). #2 Nakajima G8N Renzan (Mountain Range).
Goering himself remarked on the dauntless, arguably the finest dive bomber of the war. America, boeing B29, good talk.
Goring also said that the Italians made planes better than the Germans and actually wanted to replace the BF 109 with Italian MC 205s and Fiat G55s.. Funny how no one mentions Italy in any of these types of videos.
@@NeuKrofta might have something to do with the rapid fall of italy compared to the other axis powers. Italy made niche aircraft (Snyder cup?), granted excellent ones but still niche. No one mentions them due to the numbers game. When the Japanese out produced you its a good way to be forgotten. Then again somehow the F6 gets dissed and dismissed by every ones list. You know the "Ace Maker". The aircraft with the highest score card of any aircraft actually tested in the crucible of war. Maybe its be but i dont count superlatively trained Israeli eagle pilots downing 25 year out of date soviet aircraft being flown by half baked dimwits who thought god willed it as a real test. Thats more like an inevitable conclusion.
@@mikewaterfield3599 It isn't "niche" if they made the best planes the Axis had at the time. Isn't the whole point of a "Top 5" to highlight the best?
@@NeuKrofta best according to what though? kill count? win loss ratio? battlefield impact? JU87s were objectively crap dive bombers compared to their contemporaries yet look at the impact? The zero was a terrible fighter again look at the reputation. Reputations are frequently not based in objectivity.
@@mikewaterfield3599 best as in actual performance and reputation among both axis and the allies that fought against or alongside them.
Just because you are ignorant about them, or because people don't talk about them today does not mean they weren't good or were not highly respected during the war.
B29, so good the Russians copied it exactly part for part.
Right down to patchwork on the airframe. For real, the B-29 they captured had taken damage before so had been patched up, but the Soviets thought it was part of the design so they copied it too.
They actually made it better then the Americans tho 😳
The P47 Thunderbolt, in it's ground-attack roll, rained more Hell on enemy than the Stuka ever dreamed of dropping.
Really? France fell very quickly due to Stuka dive bombers. How long did it take USA to beat Germany with Thunderbolds and only facing 30% of the German army.
@@alastair9446 apples and oranges. Comparing France in 1940 with Germany, even German occupied France, is farsical.
Thanks for the laugh.
In reality, the P-47 could slaughter a Stuka while on it's way to bomb a Marshalling yard and blow up a bunch of trains or buildings or airfields etcetera, etcetera.
The Stuka was only successful when the skys were clear of opposition fighters. It's psychological affect was very high though but that is more on the diabolically evil mentality of the German military than having to do with the plane itself
well, the P-47 Thunderbolt is considered a fighter so it cant be in the video.
@@alastair9446 the Stuka was considered obsolete by the start of WWII, France fell quickly to better ground tactics NOT due to the use of the Stuka.
@@alastair9446Ah no. France fell because of superior German tank strategy. The Stuka also would have been pretty useless if the Luftwaffe didn't have fighter superiority in those early days. The P47 could do way more than the Stuka, even though it was technically a fighter.
Should’ve made separate videos with heavy bombers and the ground attackers...
9:13 has the wrong profile for the Mosquito. The "best" bomber of the war was the B-29 (it was incredibly sophisticated and advanced) but the Mosquito was the most versatile and was incredibly effective (If you're a pilot you want to fly the Mosquito) and while you might say it was the "best" overall, like the B-29 it wasn't critical to the outcome of the war. The most important bombers were the Liberator (because it was produced in such great numbers, was very effective and was crucial in the Battle of the Atlantic) and the IL-2 (the most produced war plane in history and crucial to victory in the all important Eastern Front). The best Naval bomber was the Douglas Dauntless (not mentioned here), not because it was all that great in any one area, but because it was just a great all around plane and could defend itself against fighters if needed (pilots loved it). Honorable mention goes to the B-25 (produced in huge numbers, and flown in all theaters and by every Allied nations, including the USSR via Lend Lease, and was quite effective).
Honestly the B29 is pretty much the king of bombers used in ww2. It was the only truly modern bomber by the end of the war with superior range and payload to its contemporaries.
It also had a service ceiling well above the fighters which were tasked with intercepting it, and excellent top speed which made it essentially impossible to combat.
There's a reason that the b29 flew long after the war and well into Korea. There's also a reason why the soviets copied it rivet for rivet.
It was an awe inspiring strategic bomber, a quantum leap beyond its rivals and adversaries, and an innovative design. The only real flaw with it is that it came off the production lines in 43 whereas the b17 and b24 were prewar planes so they participated in some of the big early battles.
But technically its not, because it only came very late in 1944, so it didn't really have as much effect on the outcome of WW2. So you can't call it the king of WW2 bombers. And if you meant its the best bomber built during the period of the 2nd world war then you clearly have never heard about the Arado Ar 234. Its a German wonder weapon jet bomber and basically better in every way apart from the bomb load. And it makes up with the lack of gunners in the speed department. Its cruising speed is about 750kph or 466mph. Where the B 29 is a slow, massive target making it vulnerable to flak and German late war jet/rocket powered interceptors. And its gunners become practically irrelevant when their targets are moving at 800kmph or 500mph.
Also, about the TU-4 (the soviet re-engineered B-29). Unlike America, the Soviet Union was destroyed both physically and economically by the Nazis. So they desperately needed a long range bomber, so they re-engineered the B-29 not because it was good but because it was the only long range bomber they could get their hands on at the time. It was also produced in limited numbers because of the cost.
So what I am saying to you is that the B-29 looks really good on paper but in reality it had a lot of flaws. And also, please do your research before putting out statements that you overheard other people saying.
B-17s were in the United States air force up to veitnam
might have included the B-25 Mitchell, Doolittle's Raid Fame and the B-26/A-26 Marauder, but that is me.
You missed out on the B 25 Mitchell. Many variants were made And operated in every theater of the war including Doolittle raid. On top of all that, they were a gorgeous plane to look at!
Let's face it.Yankee bombers could arguably fill the top 3!
"On top of all that, they were a gorgeous plane to look at!"
Looks like I'm not alone. :) I've always had a soft spot for that bird. Plus, she was armed to the teeth.
They were heavy and slow. A26 was vastly superior and why it was still flying in Vietnam and not the Shitty B25
@@w8stral I can't imagine what you're talking about. Why, in the 70's I saw a couple of Mitchells do a shitbombing run once on a pair of dudes in white suits. As for being heavy and slow, well, that tends to happen when you put honest-to-Pete cannons under your cockpit. Firing artillery in flight tends to fuck with your shit.
th-cam.com/video/cEek5IvGYKg/w-d-xo.html
Britain, America, Germany has always made finest aircraft.
❤🇬🇧🇺🇲🇩🇪❤
I see the name"Warspite", I hit that like button.
Where are US B 25 and Russian Pe 8 or Pe 2 , they are so OP
In War Thunder :)
the B-25 attack variant was a badass tho for real
Missed the US medium bomber, the B-25 Mitchell, used in smaller short range attacks in Europe, but a major player in the SW Pacific against both ground targets and for skipping bombs into ships. Although designed for medium altitude level bombing, in the Pacific, it often attacked so low that the bombs had to be fitted with parachutes to slow descent until the bomber got out of the blast radius. Likewise, a lot of the anti shipping attacks were carried out below the masts of the targets A number of them weree fitted witadditional .50 caliber machine guns in the nose, a nasty surprise for any Japanese plane finding itself flying head on to a B-25
Some of the B-25G carried 12 forward-firing .50 machine guns, besides the top turret and tail guns. The B-25G and H could also carry a 75mm tank gun for use against ships and barges. That is firepower.
Me, a third generation historical firearms collector and firearms historian: "Three-oh-three british"
Narrator. an intellectual: "boasting ten browning three hundred three caliber machine guns"
Me: ...
Love me some .303
The Stuka was only good when there was nothing opposing it, where as pretty much every other plane mentioned was designed to crack on with the mission regardless of the opposition.
I personally think the Mosquito should be the best as it could do everything not just well but incredibly well
There was also a version named the Tsetse. It was an evil bugger.
Im sorry, does your Aircraft do
*BRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEWW*
Before killing you?
_I don‘t think so_
Actually not, USA and UK losses for bombers were unsustainble. Only with the Mustang could they have a fighter escort and bombing became effective. But I don't think a Mosquito can bomb a tank in the middle of a battle without hitting his own troops.
D. E. Havilland, really? It's pronounced DER [with out the R!] as in Olivia De Havilland who was related to the De Havilland aircraft manufacturers here in the UK.
Not "der" either 🙄
@@zabaleta66 It would appear you have literacy issues. As you haven't read my response or perhaps understood it. As I did say "DER [without the R].........
Olivia de havilland is still alive!! Crazy
@@tracekornegay3790 She died on the 20th of July this year [2020]. Aged 104.
Didnt realize that.. dang
Fun fact: the recon variant of the mosquito was built by carpenter’s and made of mostly wooden pieces which gave its incredible lightness.
Weren’t all mosquito variants made from balsa wood? Correct me if I’m wrong.
The Dauntless SBD US Navy divebomber, was crucial in the Pacific naval war. And if my memory serves me, it accounted for more tons of shipping than any other US aircraft.
US aircraft yes, but not Allied. That goes to the Fairy Swordfish of all things. That obsolete old biplane sunk more tonnage of Axis shipping than any other aircraft. Kind of remarkable when you think about it.
@@alganhar1 you're getting that from a web site that is a fan club. They're counting the Bismarck in which it was only a contributor and other vessels when it was only a spotter. It's notable success was Taranto. The Dauntless sank the Japanese navy-at sea.
I don't know if the SBD was on the past video but, they should have added the SBD here
US be like: "imagine only having only 1 or 2 heavy bombers instead of having 4 in combat and multiple fully built prototypes stateside"
*meanwhile in the uk*
we'll just use 3 heavy bombers and call it a day
Large bomber small tank.
@@teodor9975 not very cash money
@@wockyslush3038 well swap places and ye would notice something similar
Having many types of bombers only hampers you. You have to retrain crew more, and parts are harder to obtain.
Correction. The Avro Lancaster could carry the largest [conventional] bomb of /any/ combatant not just the RAF. Whilst the B29 could also carry the Gland Slam 10 ton bomb it had to do so externally on the wings, whereas the Lancaster just had to have the bomb doors removed to accommodate it. The 5 ton Tall Boy bombs, which the B29 could only carry at low level for short distances, were used by Lancasters of 617 and 9 Squadrons to sink the Tirpitz in Norway.
I'm an American, but have been impressed with Britain's wooden wonder, dear ol Mossy!!!
I've seen nothing but praise.
The B29 did more damage than all the Stukas, aside from the Nukes, the firebombing of Tokyo was the highest casualty raid of the war. The Stuka was a terror weapon and was primarily effective without air Opposition. The Hawker Tempest, and P47 were better ground attack aircraft.
The Stuka might actually have been better for the Allies, because its early success as a dive bomber may have contributed to Hitler's deranged requirement for subsequently designed German bombers to have a dive bombing capability. This created such difficulties and delays for the larger German bomber developments that it helped deprive Germany of an effective heavy bomber - and thus Stalin was easily able to safeguard his armament factories by putting them a modest distance behind the front line.
but it was fitting for terrorists not actual army
I think the SBD is very underrated considering how many tons of shipping it sank and it’s more than vital role in Midway. You could even go on to say it’s successor the SB2C Helldiver should’ve made the list due to it being able to carry 2,000lbs of bombs plus 8 rockets and it being the bomber trusted to help sink Yamato and Musashi.
How many tons of shipping eh? Guess that makes the Fairy Swordfish the best Allied Naval Bomber of the war, as it sunk more Axis Tonnage than any other Allied Naval Bomber INCLDING the SBD....
Can't believe that the Stuka was chosen. They stopped using it over the UK pretty quickly due to high losses.
Well it's more of a misusage by the luftwaffe. There's no functional dive bombers in the world that can be useful in a strategic bombing mission...
Rudel and co can still got huge amount of kill in their stuka.
When he talked about the landcaster you forgot to mention the dam busters
LANCASTER ya know, like the place
and also glossed over the use of Barnes Wallis bombs that he designed such as the Tall Boy and Grand Slam - penetration earthquake bombs. One such famous raid was a raid using Lancs and Toy Boy bombs sunk the mighty battle ship the Turpitz - tied up in heavily defended Norweagen Flord.
Also forgot to mention that the Lancaster was meant to drop the atomic bombs in the first place as it didn't require any modifications to do so unlike the b29
Easy, the best was the de Havilland Mosquito.
Range & load equal to the big bomber, cheap and to fast to catch.
The slow Stuka was almost obsolete from start! More a propaganda tool.
The Stuka was more flying artillery. Good in combined operations early in the war.
It was also a low level precision bomber
yawn
@@ianlowery6014 so was the mossie, which carried the bouncing bombs to break the walls of Amiens prison, and also they were used as pathfinder aircraft, to mark targets for the main bomber force
Stuka are torn apart by other planes they can only do well with no a
Enemy fighters around
Just like b25 😂
I would put in a word for the Wellington, in production from 1937-1945. It served in other roles apart from long range bombing, being used for anti submarine and magnetic mine clearance.
The stuka was very effective in the early years. But part of what makes a bomber great or effective is longevity to. If you can you are able to upgrade and still make your current bomber relevant its going to be less hassle in the long run during a war. As its expensive designing and building that bombers successor even if you incorporate designs from its predecessor to aid with simplification processes.
As war time adds at a lot of unneeded stress for a military's r&d's department and well we can end up with rushed projects like the Panther and Tiger
as early panthers well had a tendency to catch fire as soon it drove off the tran ramps to the front. Or certain gearbox issue with Tigers.
So the Stuka is not the best because its wasn't very adaptable and was very slow so it had plenty of time to get shot down before it committed to a dive they were only fast while diving. So they could be exploited easily.
Yes the sturmovik was slow to but it had the option to fire rockets meaning it didn't have to dive. It was also alot more rugged than a stuka probably come parable to a p47 thunderbolt. Also in the hands of skilled pilot the Sturmovik could have been a better dog fighter than a stuka to even the dauntless was .
Although the B17 couldn't ultimately live up to the not needing an escort expectation. It did live up to its name and even when B17s were getting hit the hardest the defending german fighters still were in for a fight the pilots new the Flying Fortress weren't push overs. And I think there ruggedness and defensive firepower alone saved many crews to. As even with the 10 percent losses they were taking it could have been a lot worse and then when proper escorts like the p51s came into play they were only rivaled in the destructive abilities of bombers from allied nations. And only really out performed by its cousin the Liberator and successor Super Fortress.
Yes they all have their own category's to compare to. But the Stuka was one of the pioneers of tactical dive bombers but was quickly out matched and out paced. That even by the Battle of Britain it became woefully obsolete. Its still had it uses as the war went on but It when from being a thing of total fear to a very dangerous nusance. Yes to say anyone isn't afraid of the stuka is lying lol. But it became a known fear that gradually became less threatening over time as the allies gained air superiority. and as aa became more powerful and advanced the hunter became the hunted and it became more of a stuka running the gauntlet than dominating the skies anymore.
I would give honorable mention at least to 2 more extremely effective dive bombers of the ww2:
Douglas SBD "Dauntless, most famous for turning the tide of Pacific war in 15 minutes at battle of Midway, but generally very effective ship-killer throughout the war.
Aichi D3A "Val", responsible for quite many early allied losses in the Pacific war, only overshadowed once Japan lost air superiority.
The Lancaster has to be the best, come on, that's my prediction or the liberator.
Edit: God damn it. Why.
B-17s + Lancasters day/night won the war in europe change my mind
@Thomas Atwood To be fair, the Nazis wasting a lot of their manpower and materiel against the soviets was also huge... but I think the constant pressure on the german production capacity (especially oil and ball bearings and such) had a bigger impact than the actual numbers show (I believe that production remained high for a time despite the round the clock campaign). The pressure forced germany to take actions like moving production to underground facilities or farther out of range, diverting effort and manpower to protect the targets, which had to hamper their war efforts. Also, it pissed off Hitler so he wasted more effort on weapons to strike back at the allies instead of concentrating on more efficient uses of their military capacity... so basically Hitler being an unhinged nut-job won the war in europe - but I still stand for the Flying Fortress and the Lanc being key to victory.
The Lancaster was definitely a good heavy bomber--long range, heavy bomb load, decent speed. Its only weakness was the lack of a belly turret, which made it vulnerable to German night fighters.
@@galoon yah, and thats a pretty serious weak point.I wouldn't have chosen to be on a bomber crew during ww2, but if I had to - gimmie that b-29 haha
for what its worth, my grampa flew b-24 liberators (mostly) in the pacific. he didn't see any combat, he ferried them from bases in the US out to depots all over the pacific. Said it was a good smooth plane for what thats worth
@@ewolffman B29 is the most capable of all.
Stuka was effective where there was ABSOLUTE air superiority... During The Battle Of Britain they were extremely easy targets for RAF. I believe B-17 was one of the most efective WW2 Bombers bcs it held its ground against Luftwaffe in day light raids, under heavy fire until the end of the war.