Us navy?

Mathematician spotted it.

Not US it was British

Does rainbow symbolize something?

This was a british fighter thing not us bomber thing

used a fighter for ground attack lmaaaao

"I only had to rearm 50 times"

​@@ohioanbutt_ticklingbanditstill better than me-177 for ground attack

@@pigeon.and.pigeon better then using a fucking biplane thats for sure imagine mounting a 20mm on a biplane

more specifically a mk xivc

And started it with the U.S. Navy made a logical falicy

neither American nor a bomber.

⁠@@A._.Neill26fr, not sure what happened in the editing department

Yea not everybodies a hyper-attentive history geek@@darracqboy

And P47's in some shots aswell

*1st world war. The lack of knowledge some people have is astounding

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

No clearly it was used in the US war of independence and took part in burning down the White House

The French and Indian war* your lack of knowledge makes me cringe

​@@APXWOXThe Crimean War* I find your lack of knowledge disturbing

It’s not an IX though, it’s a griffon. probably a Mk. XIVc considering it's not full bubble-canopy design but a Griffin Spitfire.

@@C0ldB3er ur right

If battlefield V has taught me anything, every kind of plane is a bomber if you try hard enough

​@Digital_Soldier_31 it can bomb yes. I just gotta resupply every minute

*us navy bomber

we all in it together baby 🫶

Because it's a British story being claimed by Americans

@Peaker’s Lab the dud probably doesn't know anything and made bad content

If there weren’t markings I would’ve thought the fighter was a P47

@Peaker’s Lab Just like U571...

I can confirm, they can’t hit you if they go straight through you

Remember when the b-17 was unstoppable

Japanese zeros after being set on fire for the 5th time: Yes

@@pieterdeliho1492 i play mostly zero, you feel like god while in turn fight. But most of the time you feel like duck waiting to get shot haha

See this man gets it… all theses other dummy’s adding armour smh

dude the spitfire was the best american bomber of ww2 whatcha on about. (jk)

I think he meant to say Allies Planes. This same thing was also implemented in the British army i believe.

true good catch. thanks Marian 🙏

Still haven't given credit

He was Polish

Sorry, It was Abraham Wald (Jewish Statistician from Hungary).

@@IsmailV88 who the f cares bruh, doubt Marian actually cares cause he dead 🤦‍♂️

American bias tbh

@@SweetSniper5197 lmao golden comment

Smartest American

The cockpit should be red already

Maybe that's where all the blood drained out

Exactly the comment I was looking for

That’s right. The allies only started bombing when germany already practically lost the war

​@@justusP9101The Allies are not the Americans. They're the Allies. Frenchies and brits targeted Germany years before US even joined.

​@@justusP9101Not really, the most allied nations were bombing Germany in the early parts of the war, and the US joined in by the middle of the war

However you probably normally see it on twin-engined American bombers, such as the B-26, not single-engined British fighters like the Spitfire such as this video used. The dots in the video are in the wrong spot for the Spitfire. Oh hell nah, I just realised that you commented this over a year ago. How was your past year?

​@@tetronaut88yeah lol, the center dots got put right at the cockpit

And a spitfire is a fighter not a bomber

Yeah lol

The story was actually originally about the British. So technically he isn’t wrong.

@@pickle4422 but he was wrong because he said us navy and us military

@@pickle4422 why use a fighter when talking about bombers

Warthunder causes me extreme suffering, I’m even in a squadron

@@jonsed90 same bro

it's whne you say things like that, you know, you're too deep to come back, hahaa

IT CAUSE ME PTSD

​@@jonsed90 I have it even worse, I *_AM_* the squadron leader

if you put metal armor everywhere, that would increase the weight, so that means less speed. speed was a large priority in 1945 due to the very fast german messershmit 262, the worlds first jet fighter. this mistake could actually have lost ww2.

@@goobero343 not really. The 262 had a grand total of about 2 seconds of TOT after entering an attack run. About half a second to the target, 1 second to fire, and half to escape. Thats the whole reason the R4M (not really successful) was developed. They also were getting shot down in droves, and lack of fuel grounded many.

@@goobero343no offense but the 262 was effectively useless because Germany couldn’t actually build many and the were used primarily in non combative roles. And Americans prodution is so insane compared to Germany this would even be close to war loosing

For D-day, the USAAF put heavy metal plates in the bottom of the gliders we used if the passengers were high ranking officers. When the tow planes and gliders separated the "gliders" plummeted into the ground like meteors!

@@goobero343 Say that to the F6F Hellcat. Those bloody planes could take a serious beating from the Mitsubishi Zeros.

Carrier-based aircraft were extremly important in the atlantic theater. Britain operated 7 aircraft carriers in 1939 which came to be used extensively. The USN-aviation was not as prevalent in the atlantic theater as the british (at least in the early stages) but it still operated massive ammounts of carrier bound planes. Concerning the lack of fighter escorts/air superiority: This is kinda true for the earlier parts of the war, but by the end air superiority was established and british/US-american aircraft dominated the skies over europe and the waters which surround it. The atlantic theaters carrier operations are often overlooked due to the focus on the pacific theater by many (probably due to the most famous naval battles happening over there). Many of the aircraft used by the US were either fighters or dive bombers (helldivers and dauntless mostly, i think) meant to establish and maintain naval and air superiority. But carrier-bound bombers and transport aircraft also played a big part.

@@toomnLP You stated British carriers. The video stated US carriers. Name the US carriers that were in the European Theater?

Some would still return home so this would apply to those bombers that had bullet holes

That’s the fun part they weren’t getting blown out of the sky

@@bige9830 This story is originally about British planes, not American.

that’s why i’m here

Damn you must have been in the wrong side of KZfaq all along. I've seen it hundreds of times.

@@dylanjardon oof. I think y'all missed the sarcasm bruh.

Same

You got a source bud cause that sounds like bullshit

@@Automaticguns1 What part of it sounds like bs? The bombers just don't fit onto an aircraft carrier, the runway's too short. As for the "no America carriers", why would there be? Britain and Poland had navies that did the job just fine.

@@Automaticguns1 He's right. Navy bombers only flew off of American carriers or islands in the South Pacific. At no time during the war were American carriers near Europe.

@@Automaticguns1 calls him an idiot, refuses to elaborate, leaves.

Wasp was in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Ranger stayed in the Atlantic.

yes he’s a G of a teacher

No he’s not, cus the class is left knowing that the spitfire is a US bomber, but it’s a British fighter.

​​@@darracqboy Can't use something as an example nowadays?

@@alwexandria why not use a b 17 as an example?

Naw, kamikazing the shit outta everyone 672 MPH.

To be fair, Japanese tried to add armor on their planes during the war, but the specifics of the theatre made it harder for them. Take for example self-sealing fuel tanks: they tried to add them on the land-based aircrafts, but it took a lot of time for them to start installing them on the naval ones, because it will dramatically affect the plane’s range and to the lesser extent agility

Sir our planes our getting shot down, armor the cockpits so the pilot survives, you can’t really survive a plane crash and then hiding behind enemy lines consistently

@@kylezdancewicz7346sure but if the plane can get back to friendly territory and then you bail that’s better than dying. Frankly the evidence supporting armoring the cockpit is that plenty of successful planes put armor there.

@@Lyle_K I know but this comment ignores the fact that if the plane goes down the pilot is probably dying, because a ocean, crashing a heavy object into the ground at high speeds and hoping the squishy thing inside it survives, being behind enemy territory, you know where the enemy aircraft and anti air are most likely to be.

No your a war tactician master now

@@jarvis6253 it’s just common sense, add it to the places where there are stress points like the wing connections + vitals of the airplanes

That would've made the aircraft too heavy to take off.

@@remkirkthegamer1157 just dont make it that heavy 💀

@@MrglipglopSo: 1. We want to add armour 2. We cannot add too much 3. The plane doesn’t need to be armoured in some places By spreading the armour evenly, we waste protection on areas that don’t need to be armoured. This takes potential armour away from the areas that do need to be protected. Also remember that in air combat speed is very important, and more armour is more weight is less speed. At times designers would remove armour to gain speed, like in the American Kittyhawk aircraft.

@@carrott36 aint reading your book lil bro keep the yapping to a minimum

@@Mrglipglop 30s is how long it will take to read that. If you want to seem right or better than others, that there is not the way to do it.

Honestly, I am getting tired of these BS exaggeration vids. Is he seriously trying to go and suggest the nation’s most gifted and talented minds were very much nearly fooled by something that is basic statistics? I’m going to put this under “Do not recommend me this channel”.

@@Justin-ui5ti Exactly, shorts content is driving me insane

It’s actually called „survivorship bias“. It is just „the bomber problem“ because it has something to do with bombers. No one calls it that.

@@nanolog522 the example is the bomber problem

The bomber problem is not a thing. As previously stated, the topic of the video is survivorship bias. You're probably confusing this with the bomber gap that was a belief during the cold war that the Soviet bomber fleet was considerably larger than the US bomber fleet.

@@OB1canblowme no. I am talking about the common example used by professors to teach their students about survivorship bias that is called the bomber problem. It is based on this exact problem that the allied Air Force faced during WW2. The name of the example (the most commonly used one for survivorship bias btw) is the bomber problem. I get that the concept is survivorship bias but the topic of the video is literally on the bomber problem which showcases survivorship bias. Btw, this is something economists learn in year 1 IB HL Econ let alone if you actually go to uni for it

Awesome

Respect to those who served. With all due respect however, according to 1944 reports from the 8th airforce, the ball turret gunner had the lowest casualty rate. Not downplaying your grandpa’s achievements, but just letting you know :D

Truer words have never been spoken

The air force was founded in 1947

i mean you gotta be careful when it comes to the American spitfire bombers ya know

dude they went from spitfires being british fighters to spitfires being American bombers.

Most aircrafts at the start of the war were actually much more advanced then anything from WW1. Speed has almost doubled, range sometimes was more then 10 times higher, armament more then twice as heavy.

Only problem is the weight induced by this means less ordnance or weight in other areas like crew and defences