Відео

ty

Since I was a kid I've always been interested in German WWII aircraft especially their less conventional designs and I've read a few books with numerous builds, models blueprints and sketches and I've never seen this before. That wing, looks like a De Havilland Mosquito's wing. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. =D

I bet that Hammerhead design was a hoot in a spin, lmfao!

*_Designing and developing_* an engine, intended for low-demand, sounds like a project to keep a father-in-law's factory financed. I'd have liked a lot more about that Argus As 410 engine project. In the event of war, using resources to make a "low demand" engine sounds 'shady' (presumably the needs of civil aviation have shrunk, making it "lowest demand"). Interesting video. However, would you please add 'chapters' to make it easier to review parts? Best Wishes. ☮

That was very good, and yes I could evolve.........into the great man that I am today, after these 77 years

Something is wrong here, only 26K, should be 260K! Well, how long do we have to wait for until the MiG-3? 😉

Fritz-x actually hit a target didn't it ? It hit a US Warship ?

It appears British intelligence was aware of the landing - speed problem, so they weren't too concerned about the phantom He - 113.

You didn't specifically mention the 217's "moment in the sun", sinking Roma, damaging Italia, and contesting Salerno landing with putting out of action for many months Savanah, Uganda, Warspite. The K-2 subtype involved HAD the wing area/improved wing leading to be effective at the required all-up bombing weights. Whether a design CAN, in some narrow sense sense, ALWAYS be redesigned to successfully fly as a divebomber is an arcane point sometimes made by snarky, sarcastic commentators who seem to frequent online forums. Arcane in the sense that the point is obvious and usually irrelevant. What IS relevant to the video of this a/c, is that Germany went down this rabbit hole--regardless of its PREROGATIVE--WAY to often, preventing otherwise promising designs from being operational at a time in the war when they might have made a difference. This was a reasoning flaw, that did not take into proper account multiple factors, not least of which is that the divebombing concept, by its very nature, presupposes a sufficient air superiority. This flawed German analysis is integral to the Do-217 Story. One could theoretically make the B-36 into a divebomber, but, as Capt. Obvious may opine, why do we need such ridiculously narrow points? Prerogative is as prerogative does, I always sez. To quote a semi-famous actor, "Winning!" is the name of the game here, also central to the 217's less than stellar story.

Shame as it looks pretty sleek and similar to the Spitty

1:40, bs, far more bombers got home safe than got shot down, do some of these channels even care about #ourhistory

😊

I always loved the A-26 as a boy; it looked so cool and powerful. Thanks for the video, it was very informative.

4:27 that looks mighty uncomfortable for the guy sitting behind the pilot.

I was rejected for a job application once because they said that I was overqualified for the job. They phoned me back a week later asking me if I was still interested in the job?! I replied no sorry; I'm overqualified 😂

Hey, at least it wasn't totally bad. It's not like Britain had much choice at the time, one way, or an ether...

Seriously thanking God for the Hurricane 🙏

If Germany had the industrial might it had available for the time strategic ability may have been more successful. But the problem was always command and forward thinking. Doctrine, command advancement and party affiliation was more important. Look at Loyd Austin. Just like Germany they made military people politicians. Ludendorf and hindenburg were adored and loved during ww1 and see how that went. Beautiful planes and plans but people fail . Unfortunately humans are fallible and should learn from this . Ww1 and ww2 should have ended this foolery. But we are afflicted to this day.

Germans don't build Bargain Basement anything you bag of hot air

If your logo is actually cool, why doesn't it have sunglasses and a leather jacket on?

I'd always wondered why there weren't more rear mounted engines in ground attack planes. They're more protected from ground fire mounted in the read, and it frees up space in the front for better aimed guns right in front of the pilot. There's also the fact that the reduction is speed doesn't affect their role very much, so it's not really a determent to its design to mount an engine that way. Anyone know why this wasn't a thing? Thanks.

It has a problem with drag? Must be a Republican.

Booooooton? Americans can’t speak English!

I was an aircraft propeller repairman in the Air Force on 1965 in Vietnam War. And I remember salvaging parts when and where ever we could to keep these few planes serviceable. Really cool blog !!

I wonder if a larger version might have made into a decent dive bomber or torpedo plane.

Great video, well researched! Henschel was actually quite a large company, their main business being making locomotives (Steam engines). But I imagine that their aero division was not that big.

11:20 the 193 has got that A10 warthog vibe going especially the nose section.

Genius idea to have Principle Skinner do the narration on this!

Bluuhm und Foss

Some Defiant notes;- 1) It was always envisioned it should have a fighter escort if operating in the range of enemy fighters. 2) At the start of the war, until part through the Battle of Britain, the RAF flew in rigid formations, with only the squadron leader looking out for enemy fighters. Many 'tail end charlies' were lost, some even over their own airfields this way - the Defiant was far better spotting incoming aircraft. 3) Both occasions the Defiant squadrons lost heavily, they were outnumbered 2-4:1 & bounced. No forward firing single fighters would have got away unscathed from this. They were also not protected by single seat fighters as per tactical doctrine. 4) Defiants didn't get the new variable pitch propellers to increase performance like the single seat squadrons did (only a few were supplied), or the armoured cockpit glass. 5) Defiants didn't have the backing of those in RAF High Command, who favoured single seaters, which gave better overall performance for the types of combat encountered, for less resources. There may have also been resentment against the workers at the B-Paul factory, who were quite militant (possibly due to how they were treated by the management), which delayed production in wartime. 6) On the day of 264 Sqns 37 claims (the Germans said some didn't get shot down), it appears that the Me 110's claimed weren't recorded at all by the Luftwaffe, but at least 2 were seen to go into the sea by the Defiant crews. Whilst there could be various reasons for this, at the very least, it appears odd. 7) Even if single seat, forward firing fighters did go into a protective circle, they could still be shot down, so firing frontally wasn't necessarily the main issue. The Defiant could fire forward, but only over the propeller arc, so would have to dive to fire level, which would take training the crews didn't get, as it wasn't part of their doctrine anyway. 8) Defiants didn't get a chance to practice all the types of combat flying they did eventually encounter, or have forced upon them. 9) 264 Sqns own C.O, did agree that for general combat, incl fighter v fighter, single seaters were better. 10) It can be argued, that attacking unescorted bombers in daylight, the Defiant was a better plane for this task than a forward firing single seater, especially when a lot of the single seater pilots were bad shots (for a variety of reasons), while the Defiant gunner had less to do in a better platform. On occasion, they did rip apart German formations, whereas on at least one incident in the Battle of Britain, RAF single seat forward firing fighters outnumbered the attacking German bombers, but most of the bombers got away.

Honestly, it looks like the most bad ass ground attacker i ever seen. The way they moved the engines forward and down doubles as protection for the Pilot and vital equipment.

Well. If Joe Biden was running nazi Germany, the war would have been over sooner. Shat your pants Joe . Shat dem pants.

1:13 I applied for a job at a cafe with all the experience and skills and everything needed for the position, plus more. I was turned down for not having the skills and experience needed

Sans turret, the BP was faster than the Hurricane and more maneuverable than the spit. The air ministry didn't want production Split between three fighters. Target tug towing , search and rescue and the brief Night fighter were highly successful AND vital. It was also the testbed for the first ejector seats. One squadron did employ the equally maligned Lufberry Circle with great success During the BoB. They began a unified descent that took full advantage vof the turret concept. The gunners also had a unique parachute More fat wetsuit than bulky pack

Just visually, I really like the 210/410. Same with the Junkers 288/388. Can't quite put my finger on it, but it's probably because of the cockpit design.

I always get the idea B&V was screwing around on purpose. So they could soak up money without putting anything useful into production. B&V are TRASH and did nothing to aide their side of the conflict. I have no respect for these FRAUDS.

Bolt'on, Bolt, Bolt, Bolt, as in a nut and Bolt..

Superb presentation! Thank you.

The commentary is appalling. The presenter maybe American but that is no excuse for his mangling of English. I gave up

The defiant is a product of that time period where rapid innovation was combined with speculation of how the next war was going to be fought. It is just one of those designs that got screwed over by being designed for a war fighting method that didn’t turn out to be effective or useful

I shall fly it and I shall love it and I shall call it George.

Keep up the excellent content and CONGRATULATIONS on your 💯 th!

Whose moral was shattered by bombing? neither the British with the Blitz nor the German with the bombing of the cities or the Japanese with the firebombing.

I enjoyed your video. First time I have seen your channel. I would contend with the epithet "Jack of one trade" as the Defiant was used in many different roles: Dayfighter; nightfighter; gunnery training; ( all of which you nicely covered here ) but also Electronic Warfare; air sea rescue and the unglamerous but most necessary tsrget tug. She may not have excelled in any of these roles ( making her a jack not a King or Ace ) but she was useful within them. You have won a British subscriber. (Suggestion: ask us Brits about pronunciations )

Second model looks a bit like an a-10.

It’s pronounced Bolt on. Thumbs down for you!

A very fair assessment. !

It scored a direct hit against godzilla

The British stumbled upon the "Night Music" weapon system the Germans would employ later in the war with deadly effect to exploit the British bombers Achilles heel not having a bottom gun turret. Lancasters never knew what hit them, being shot from below by HE 219's. The Japanese too would figure out it was most effective to have guns shoot upwards into a bomber's belly. If they would have put even a pair of guns in the Defiant's wings, it would have had a chance to scare off head on attacks, despite its slow speed.

Boltn & Warrick. RAF Squadrons are generally referred to as "264 Squadron" rather than "Squadron Number 264" or "The 264th Squad" etc. The "Air Ministry" was just that , rather than "The Royal Air Ministry" - which never existed. That aside I always wondered why B.P. Didn't lose the turret & add some forward firing guns, (the wings were certainly large enough), & what the performance would be without the weight of a gunner & turret. They even wanted to strap a turret on the Mosquito, that wouldn't have gone well. Fortunately it was't really up to the Air Ministry, being a private venture.