More stories 👉 SmartNonsense.com 🌈

@Croatoan140

11 ай бұрын

Us navy?

@dave_h_8742

11 ай бұрын

Mathematician spotted it.

@colewurz8475

10 ай бұрын

Not US it was British

@hercegovac9999

10 ай бұрын

Does rainbow symbolize something?

@joellumb

7 ай бұрын

This was a british fighter thing not us bomber thing

"American Bombers" Proceeds to show a spitfire through the entire video:

@Tenems941

10 ай бұрын

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

@A._.Neill26

10 ай бұрын

neither American nor a bomber.

@darracqboy

10 ай бұрын

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

@Jerry-cg9ni

10 ай бұрын

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

@felixgaede6754

10 ай бұрын

And P47's in some shots aswell

Rookie mistake: They used a spitfire to do strategic bombing lmao

@ohioanbutt_ticklingbandit

9 ай бұрын

used a fighter for ground attack lmaaaao

@dosidicusgigas1376

9 ай бұрын

"I only had to rearm 50 times"

@pigeon.and.pigeon

8 ай бұрын

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

@ohioanbutt_ticklingbandit

7 ай бұрын

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

@lambo_centernario9064

6 ай бұрын

more specifically a mk xivc

ah yes, the spitfire mk ix. my favorite us bomber!

@C0ldB3er

9 ай бұрын

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.

@TheGoat1939

9 ай бұрын

@@C0ldB3er ur right

@Digital_Soldier_31

6 ай бұрын

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

@averagegameplay619

5 ай бұрын

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

@zawadlttv

5 ай бұрын

*us navy bomber

The Spitefire Mk. IX was the most effective American bomber during the 2nd world war. What an amazing feat, it was.

@CaptainCutlerCat

7 ай бұрын

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

@LeMogus

7 ай бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@death22_fighter27

7 ай бұрын

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

@APXWOX

7 ай бұрын

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

@NaNNaNNaNNaNNaN

6 ай бұрын

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

Why are you using a British fighter for a video about American bomber planes?

@dylanjardon

2 жыл бұрын

we all in it together baby 🫶

@mcduck5

2 жыл бұрын

Because it's a British story being claimed by Americans

@fabio_kill

2 жыл бұрын

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

@xinyangqing9071

2 жыл бұрын

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

@mcduck5

2 жыл бұрын

@Peaker’s Lab Just like U571...

"No armor best armor"-warthunder players

@someasiankid6214

2 жыл бұрын

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

@funkymonkey2806

2 жыл бұрын

Remember when the b-17 was unstoppable

@pieterdeliho1492

2 жыл бұрын

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

@user-em2rk3em2i

Жыл бұрын

@@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

@Lemonyhail

Жыл бұрын

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

Classic logic mistake that could’ve cost them the war: Using a spitfire as a strategic bomber 💀

“The us planes needed more protection” Proceeds to show a British spitfire.

@dekinnis

7 ай бұрын

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

@jac6478

2 ай бұрын

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

Give credit to the man that told them the logic was wrong, Albert Wald. Note: previous name was incorrect.

@dylanjardon

2 жыл бұрын

true good catch. thanks Marian 🙏

@IsmailV88

2 жыл бұрын

Still haven't given credit

@AmericanOdyssey91

2 жыл бұрын

He was Polish

@jsteinberg48

2 жыл бұрын

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

@traeyoung458

2 жыл бұрын

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

Didn't fool me, because I've seen this chart 1000 times

@tetronaut88

10 ай бұрын

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?

@tatsuyashiba6931

10 ай бұрын

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

The US navy “shows british Spitfire aircraft”

Mistake, they added armour to someone elses planes

Him: US planes video: Spitfire

The red dots in the cockpit, returned home?

@SweetSniper5197

Жыл бұрын

American bias tbh

@tommythetemplar

Жыл бұрын

@@SweetSniper5197 lmao golden comment

@aliemirduran5530

Жыл бұрын

Smartest American

@belgianfried

Жыл бұрын

The cockpit should be red already

@Magickills74

Жыл бұрын

Maybe that's where all the blood drained out

Lets not over exaggerate, this would in no way have costed them the war.

@5b_c4ll3d_p4ul

9 ай бұрын

Exactly the comment I was looking for

@justusP9101

9 ай бұрын

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

@friedyzostas9998

8 ай бұрын

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

@CaptainCutlerCat

7 ай бұрын

​@@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

Bro that is a British spitfire

No I wasn't fooled, my years of playing war thunder have finally paid off.

@jonsed90

Жыл бұрын

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

@bereskatuket7744

Жыл бұрын

@@jonsed90 same bro

@girostade5477

Жыл бұрын

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

@itsalmostfun8567

Жыл бұрын

IT CAUSE ME PTSD

@televisio8652

Жыл бұрын

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

You using a Spifire. It’s a British fighter. You said the US Navy? What are you talking about?

@willscott2498

2 жыл бұрын

And a spitfire is a fighter not a bomber

@darracqboy

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah lol

@pickle4422

2 жыл бұрын

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

@willscott2498

2 жыл бұрын

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

@engiturtle65

2 жыл бұрын

@@pickle4422 why use a fighter when talking about bombers

Same thing almost happened to helmets in WW1. The brass realized that more injury reports were filled out after soldiers were equipped with helmets. They found it odd but realized that these were just the soldiers that were surviving instead of dying.

“Where would you put the metal?” Me: everywhere

@goobero343

7 ай бұрын

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.

@magnum6763

7 ай бұрын

@@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.

@kylezdancewicz7346

6 ай бұрын

@@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

@elessartelcontar9415

5 ай бұрын

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!

@KitFoxune

5 ай бұрын

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

Wait a minute backup for a second . US navy in the European theater? Planes were flying out of land based strips in England controlled by the army. And if I remember correctly the reason why our bombers were getting blown out of the sky Because we didn't have fighter's that could escort them to Germany. They had to turn around Halfway there.

@toomnLP

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@bige9830

2 жыл бұрын

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

@IceColdBellPepper

2 жыл бұрын

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

@karlthedogwithakar98k95

2 жыл бұрын

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

@RazorPantherz

2 жыл бұрын

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

Someone saw the survivorship bias video that was widely recommended to people 2-3 days ago

Every single visual you used for "American bombers" were British Spitfire fighter planes

hmm yes my favourite bomber, the spitfire

"did it fool you ??" Me: sandwich eating noises intensives

@CommanderGeneral

10 ай бұрын

Same

Wow this is the first video I've seen on KZread about survivor bias thanks for gracing us with the original content.

@dylanjardon

2 жыл бұрын

that’s why i’m here

@ghosthunter0950

2 жыл бұрын

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

@Imugi007

2 жыл бұрын

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

I’d put the protection where they aren’t shot, because that’s the important part now.

To some extent, minor armor around the pilot might still be a good idea. It’s pretty quick to build a new plane, not that easy to build a new pilot.

Navy? The bombers in Europe were operating under the Army Air Force, there were no American carriers in the atlantic

@Automaticguns1

2 жыл бұрын

You got a source bud cause that sounds like bullshit

@icantthinkofausername2605

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@496jamesc

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@lgkite4336

2 жыл бұрын

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

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935

Жыл бұрын

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

Bro didnt even have to see the whole vid we've all seen this they put armor on the parts that weren't hit

"Who needs armor when you can kamikaze" - War Thunder Player

@theodenking320

10 ай бұрын

Truer words have never been spoken

The planes shown in this video are spitfires

I literally just watched a guy explaining this to his class

@dylanjardon

2 жыл бұрын

yes he’s a G of a teacher

@darracqboy

2 жыл бұрын

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

@alwexandria

Жыл бұрын

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

@spoon6937

9 ай бұрын

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

I already knew this the guy who convinced them to do it was a hero.

Key phrase: The ones that were shot DOWN

armor the cockpit, you can replace or fix a damn good aircraft but you cant replace a damn good pilot.

@kylezdancewicz7346

6 ай бұрын

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

@Lyle_K

6 ай бұрын

@@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.

@kylezdancewicz7346

6 ай бұрын

@@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.

Warthunder players: “My logic is beyond your understanding”

Meanwhile Japan: Armor? What the fuck is that? What we need is fire power and mobility!

@OldFellowSnek

9 ай бұрын

Naw, kamikazing the shit outta everyone 672 MPH.

@skysamurai4649

5 ай бұрын

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

Bro had the guts to say "Nazi Germany" 💀💀💀

Bomber fleet. Shows fighter. US planes. Shows spitfire. Add metal to the engine. Bangs a hammer everywhere else except the engine.

They were fooled by the survivorship bias, but they also listened to advice from the Statistical Research Group at Columbia University, where Abraham Wald gave his analysis of the issue.

Bro I figured it out. I’m so proud of myself yet it means nothing. 😂

@jarvis6253

10 ай бұрын

No your a war tactician master now

@nicholaswhatts1380

10 ай бұрын

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

Where they didn’t get shot because that’s where the ones that didn’t come back got shot

Bro has a Spitfire as an American plane

Heard this 1 million times already

It’s called the bomber problem at this point it’s a classic thought experiment. FYI the military wanted to put the armor not metal on the areas that got shot but economists told them otherwise.

@nanolog522

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@reblanium

2 жыл бұрын

@@nanolog522 the example is the bomber problem

@OB1canblowme

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@reblanium

2 жыл бұрын

@@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

Survivorship bias is the main reason the challenger blew up weirdly

“You would put it where the red isn’t.” Me: EVERYWHERE

Already knew this, I had to solve this in History class

@icecraftgaming8661

Жыл бұрын

Awesome

Add metal evenly, its called weight distribution

@remkirkthegamer1157

5 ай бұрын

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

@Mrglipglop

5 ай бұрын

@@remkirkthegamer1157 just dont make it that heavy 💀

@carrott36

5 ай бұрын

@@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.

@Mrglipglop

5 ай бұрын

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

@carrott36

5 ай бұрын

@@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.

Almost got me until i remembered they survived

Navy 💀 thought it was the Air Force 💀

@FART674xbox

2 ай бұрын

The air force was founded in 1947

It's only a myth that they actually wrongly armoured the aircraft, and your claim that it nearly cost the bomber squadrons is incorrect. Even the most basic of engineers understands that armouring bare metal isn't doing any good if your leaving the cockpit exposed. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. This is only a hypothetical. No engineer would legitimately go and make useless parts of the plane more protected. Perhaps a not very skilled statistician could make the mistake, but the engineers would straighten him out.

@Justin-ui5ti

10 ай бұрын

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”.

@partiallyfrozen3425

10 ай бұрын

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

“Classic logic mistake” *shows Spitfire*

Love this. And while your right about the survivor ship bias, as many in the comments pointed out your showing the British spitfire fighter planes, and not an American bomber planes like the anerican version of the B-17.

Yup, really woulda cost the whole war. Great assessment

"Protection to the plane so they didn't get shot down" **proceeds to show bullet holes on cockpit**

Knew this for a while now. The guy that pointed it out saved many lives

My grandpa was a bottom turret gunner on a B-17. He flew dozens of missions and surprisingly survived every single one. If you don’t know the chances of not surviving being in a bomber crew were very high and even higher chances of not surviving being a bottom gunner. When my family and I were cleaning out his house after he passed, he had a couple boxes with a lot of his old army files. The files were all mission briefings/orders/overviews of the missions he was apart of. A lot of them had the classic ‘TOP SECRET’ red stamp on them. He was a good man and I wish I was able to know him more when I was older so I could learn more about his time during WW2 and just his life in general.

@carrott36

5 ай бұрын

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

Actually, logically speaking, you want to add armour to the places where there is fuel, components, or crew. everything else is, by definition, expendable. no fuel, no way to come home, no engine/controls, same, and no crew, again, same. so forget mapping out bullet holes! thats what i say.

My brain wired to put the metal in the windows

My dumb ass be like: add protection to the entire plane

@carrott36

5 ай бұрын

Problem is, more armour is less speed. Speed is very important in air combat. If you have the energy advantage, in height or speed, you can engage and disengage at will and the enemy cannot retaliate. Same goes for bombers, as enemy fighters will have a harder time keeping up.

“Bomber problem” *proceeds to show a spitfire*

*knocks on the wing of a spitfire* "yup. there's your problem. not a bomber." *instantly promoted to general*

The issue was they added the armour to where the surviving planes where not where the dead planes were so the armour was practically useless

"Maybe cost them the war" I'm pretty sure that is a huge overstatement we still would've won but not without more losses

Well, at least they found the mistake they done.

Yeah but you'd also want the pilots to be protected aswell cuz ik for sure that ai planes are not here yet

Bruhhhh that's just common sense and I just fumbled it so badly

"american bombers" proceeds to show spitfire with raf badge...

Man graduated from the kfc stock pile

Me: puts armor on the entire plane

I personally said that you should put plating and protection on the places that weren’t getting shot because every plane is coming back, but in those specific places they were never shot

me: " *adds metal to everything* "

This has the same logic as "we interviewed 100 russian roulette players and they all survived thus we can confirm it is 100% safe to play"

The dude learned history on a Mcdonald toilet

POV: You said everywhere.

"bombers" **shows a fighter**

The reason they weren't fooled was because they had already made the same mistake with their warships

i would add armor everywhere since its preferable to not get holes in my bombers

@SweetSniper5197

9 ай бұрын

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

Reminds me of when they were having a huge spike in injuries during ww1 right after they added steel helmets only to realize the injuries would have been deaths without them

The places that don’t have holes because if those get hit then they don’t come back

Poor pilot has no extra armour

Ah yes the American spitfire

Us Fighter Planes. **Shows A Spitfire**

"the US Military" Proceeds to show a British Spitfire

I'm very sure a bomber that fell from 30k ft going 200-400mph is great for telling what destroyed it

They prolly figured this out by lunch

Same problem with a space rocket where they removed certain important data from a graph

absolutely didn't fool me

"these planes are free turning from battle" Me: *_neuron activation_*

Oh yes returning from battle even though the cockpit is shot to hell must have turned on autopilot

How did that spitfire even survive💀💀💀

Meanwhile in war thunder: "A nine millimetre bullet penetrated your nose cap, disabling the engine, sends shrapnels killing the pilot, striking the fuel tank, and rips the plane to shreds"

"Bombers" Continues to show a spitfire (British fighter) And a BF-109 (German fighter)

That plane look goofy af 💀

Almost fooled me. Last second, I realised

Ive heard this damn history so many times lately on yt. Its like when Kyle talked about the demon core, but instead of memes we just get the same video over and over again

I was thinking the extra armour might mess up the balance