The Germans didn't have a strategic airforce because they could not afford having one NOT because they felt they didnt need one. They lacked the strategic resources (fuel!) to operate such a force. Mind you that about half the resources the Western Allies had at their desposal in the ETO went to the strategic bombing campaign. It was just too expensive for the Germans to justify it, especially if it had to be created at the expense of the Tactical bombing and fighter units of the Luftwaffe.

@earlworley-bd6zy

Ай бұрын

Same with German A-bomb.,So,They consentrated on nuke reactors for subs & then A-bomb later if time permitted.

@AndreasKonig-qq7yk

Ай бұрын

they also lacked the necessary amount of aluminium to build them.

@jamess3241

7 күн бұрын

And not one of them ever found out what the fox said.

The B-29's Wright engines were so cutting edge, they had a tendency to catch fire. When the Super B-29, the B-50 was produced, it used the same Pratt & Whitney engines as the B-36.

@davidlittle7418

4 ай бұрын

The flaps were also a death trap if they opened them fully it caused too much drag, which wasn't discovered till after the war.

@williamzk9083

4 ай бұрын

The problems of the R-3350 were solved. Fuel injection eliminated hot spots from uneven fuel distribution as well as smoothing out of the exhaust manifold curves to stop hot spots.

@gort8203

4 ай бұрын

@@davidlittle7418 You must mean the cowl flaps? I think they knew about this during the war as the training manual warned that the airplane would not get airborne with the cowl flaps fully open. This is from the Sept 1944 B-29A Before Takeoff Checklist: COWL FLAPS.-At start of take-off, set 15°, then milk cowl flaps slowly closed to obtain 7½ deg. at time wheels leave ground.

@davidlittle7418

4 ай бұрын

@@gort8203 Yes I did mean the cowl flaps, but I heard a different take on it as it claimed that it cause losses & the full extent wasn't understood till the Soviets reverse engineered it. Probably a bit of both or more likely the authorities playing it down as they didn't have to fly it lol.

@gort8203

4 ай бұрын

@@davidlittle7418 We hear all sorts of things, but you can see the issue was known and addressed in the training and operating manuals. This is the type of issue that is discovered during flight testing before a plane enters operational service.

Uber fortress..; an armored limosine with the bulletproof divider up, and the childproof door locks on.

Moreover, the Me-264 consumed too many resources. - It required a large ground crew, which would prevent other units from getting support. An American equivalent needed 1000 people for just 1 bombardment group. - It consumed a huge amount of fuel. The fuel tanks are not for show, and its fuel could go to many Heinkels and JU-88s to generate more combat mass against supply chains. Unlike strategic bombers, tactical bombers had a passable cost-benefit ratio. - There was no long-range escort available. Even legends like the Zero traded high altitude performance for weight savings. That made any mission pointless, because only America and the British Empire could throw away that many resources on planes not expected to return, or even hit their targets. - Basing was too demanding. A heavy bomber like that would require hard surfaces like proper concrete, and that is largely unavailable in the eastern front. If you did, it would be bombed 3 times a day because it is the only one in the area, and everyone will know where your amerikabombers live. You had to sacrifice a lot of combat mass from other Kampfgeschwaders to form a single heavy bombardment group, but CAS is much more in demand on the eastern front, and fighters and light bombers are needed on the Atlantic. It also takes away production for existing needs. There was no benefit to such a large investment either. - Statistics clearly show that mining oceans were far more effective than bombing raids against shipping, and strategic bombing did not generate good value for your sacrifices. - Those capabilities are easily replaced by more efficient platforms and means. - British targets are already in range of existing bombers, and those are much smaller, efficient and more survivable. - The ussr is entirely reliant on the USA for crucial resources, so there is no practical difference between carpet bombing the Urals than interdicting supply lines and depots with JU-88 strikes + generating U-boat missions from Norway, only U-boats are less costly. Germany did not have the vast population and resources, so trading symmetrically = instant defeat. All efforts and resources had to be focused on immediately beneficial and resource-effective means. That is the driving force behind projects like Me-262, Panther and Tiger, because 1 panther used less fuel than 2x Pz.IV, while being much more survivable and capable. Also, your names were all butchered. Erhard Milch is pronounced Air-hard Mil-h Heinkel's hein- is pronounced like Heineken, so like High-n-kl

@jim99west46

4 ай бұрын

Heavy bombers cost a lot. The Lancaster cost 40 percent of the RAF budget, the B29 cost more than the Manhattan project as did the V2 program.

@karlheinzvonkroemann2217

4 ай бұрын

Like the Mahattan Project. The Germans didn't have 100k men and $5 Billion to dump into a project that NOBODY knew for certain would even work. So of coure a project like the Me-264 wasn't appealing in terms of the necessary manpower costs. Germany never had a chance in hell to win a war against the British Empire, the USA and the Soviet Union. They never wanted to fight the UK or USA and only attacked the Soviets as a last ditch pre-emptive prayer to try and knock the Soviet Union out before Stalin attacked Germany and FDR brought the USA (officially) into the war. After Stalingrad when FDR was sure that the Western Aliies would win the war, he then and only then, demanded "unconditional surrender". The UK could have had an easy peace anytime they wanted one but they were under the spell of FDR and the war dragged on and killed millions of more people than it ever had to.

@charlesc.9012

4 ай бұрын

@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217 You had to build an entire system around a nuclear weapon too. An atom bomb is only a landmine on its own. You needed a delivery system for the bomb that can actually reach the target, which is the one-of-a-kind b-27. V-2 missiles did not have enough precision back then. You need absolute air superiority to not be interdicted with disastrous results. The US also had superior high-altitude performance on top of it. The Germans never had any of the requirements, so they lost interest in this project very quickly

@karlheinzvonkroemann2217

4 ай бұрын

@@charlesc.9012 "a project that NOBODY knew for certain would even work".

@alfnoakes392

4 ай бұрын

@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217 Was not the Allied concern that the Germans might be developing their own Atomic Weapon? It was only the chance to examine German efforts after VE Day that revealed how poorly organised and unsuccessful the German effort had been.

Thank You for Your efforts. I am looking forward to the next episode. Best Wishes Brian.

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Many thanks!

This is great. Thank you for your time and effort.

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

My pleasure!

Next time I will get this instead of Uber

Great channel and information about a little know part, or lack thereof, of Nazi Germany's attempt to form long-range bombers. Enjoy the humor as well. Thanks and look forward to more videos on your channel

@worldofwarbirds

3 күн бұрын

I’m glad you appreciate the humour. Not everyone does!

You might also like to look up Helen Dorch Longstreet. The widow of Confederate General Longstreet who lived long enough to be a Rosie the Riveter on B-29s.

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Really? That’s pretty cool!

@lonniemonroe2714

4 ай бұрын

Love it. Learn something every day

@willthorson4543

4 ай бұрын

Lol. She would have been over 95years old. Lol

@josephbingham1255

4 ай бұрын

She was 80. She was featured working on B-29s in Life Magazine Dec. 27, 1943 Also see on KZread "Taste of History Honoree: Helen Dorch Longstreet" a short 3:35 min. video.@@willthorson4543

German bomber over New York.’AI image!’ Thanks,I would never have guessed!

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Just covering my butt…

@melchiorvonsternberg844

4 ай бұрын

It would have been considerably more likely that New York would have been fired upon from submarines using V1 cruise missiles or V2 rockets. Because the Nazis could have done that easily. The technology (after all, there were already mobile launch pads for V2 rockets) could have been easily adapted...

@billwendell6886

Ай бұрын

They actually flew it there, snapped some pics, just to prove they did it.

The design of the ME264 is a beautiful design, especially looking at it from the front view, even though it was flawed in the way it actually flew apparently. That very long and unique wing design which flows right through the fuselage and engine nacelles make the aircraft very low to the ground sitting upon it's tricycle landing gear. The short landing gear also made the aircraft very low to the ground on take off and landing in comparison to other aircraft of the era. Overall, you see similarities to the B-29 with the round fully glazed cockpit which surrounds the entire front of the fuselage giving the bomber aircraft of that era, a very unique look. The Heinkel HE-111 also has a similar front end design with that round glass open cockpit where you could actually see the pilot working the yoke and rutter controls from outside the aircraft. There were some reports of allied fighter pilots saying they could actually clearly see the pilot and other crew members during attacks to shoot down the bombers due to the entire front of the aircraft being thick glass or perspex giving a clear view of the crew. Bunks, a latrine, and a galley in a military bomber was unique as most bombers or any military aircraft of that era did not have those luxuries, and only a select few military planes like the PBY Catalina did have bunks/bathroom/small rooms for specific functions/very small galley for cooking/eating, etc. for crew comfort on long missions over the open ocean. The German's were anticipating very long trans-atlantic flights so the bunks, latrine, and hot plate/very small galley for cooking were included in the original design for crew comfort on those long missions. The design itself is a beautiful design visually. It reminds me of the Arado aircraft of WWII. I was surprised this was a Messerschmidt as it looks so much like the Arado's of that time period. Arado was another notable aircraft company with some pretty unique designs for jet bombers which were the only operational jet bombers in the entire world at that time although the Allies did use a few operationally towards the very end of the war. Arado made very heavy duty aircraft and their bi-planes, floatplanes, and other aircraft they produced were used by Germany and Axis forces during all of WWII.

It was a great looking aircraft!

At 3.12 the smoke ,Hitler,hand shakes,many faces burning

I'm curious: the Germans had some excellent long-range flying boats. Why not adapt them for the purpose, especially since their diesel engines allowed them to refuellable by any ship or submarine along the way, reducing the need for an extra-large, extra heavy fuel load ? Short of a Germany developing the A-bomb, these raids, had they occured, could never hope to have any impact on North American industrial production, so since it would be nothing more than a psychological weapon, why not adapt something that already existed rather than waste resources developing a near-useless specialized aircraft.

@nightjarflying

4 ай бұрын

The plan was to use the Azores as a transit airfield to reach the United States - a better option than flying boats which cannot carry anything like the bomb load of a land-based aircraft. A rationale for the plan was to force the US to defend US targets with aircraft & AA thus reducing the supply of the same material to the British Isles. Not at all practical since the Azores could be attacked. But then the Nazis were a totalitarian terror state which is an ideal environment to grow hair brained, wasteful ideas.

@davidlittle7418

4 ай бұрын

Because the Germans were in a master class all of their own when it came to wasting resources on a multitude of unnecessary projects & variants!!!

@williamzk9083

4 ай бұрын

The issues of the using flying boat are basically that it would have to be done in the Atlantic. This is the Atlantic ocean north the Pacific Ocean. Pacific means peaceful. Atlantic Ocean is full of heavy swells that suitable for rendezvous with a submarine. That was one of the main issues. Many of these flying boats were developed for civilian purposes and did not have protected fuel tanks.

@TheArgieH

4 ай бұрын

Well short of the A bomb, they did have other WMDs available. German chemist's had already developed a handy selection of nerve gases and other CBW. A few tons of one of those sprinkled over an East Coast US city would have been memorable. Why didn't they use them on Great Britain? Well fear of retaliation maybe, the British had tested a handy line in anthrax spores, not nice but war isn't. Also on a just in case basis, prior to WWII the British Government had issued something like 30 million civilian gas masks to the population. There were colourful versions for children and sealed hand cranked versions for babies and toddlers. A range of toxic chemical weapons were used by both sides in WWI, there was no reason to assume they would not be deployed more widely in a future conflict. A civilian could be arrested if caught in public without their gas mask. If you see civilians in documentaries of the war period you may see them with a cardboard box slung from a string strap. That will hold a gas mask. An Amerika bomber was always unlikely. The only practicable aircraft c ould only get the range by launching from the Azores. I believe that those were occupied by the Allies. Also with several thousand miles of empty ocean to cross, radar would have seen them coming.

@cefb8923

Ай бұрын

​@@davidlittle7418It's funny because it's true yet they get all the credit in WW2 as having all the superior equipment. There's definitely some truth there but they also wasted it on a lot of dumb, ineffective, wasteful shit. The V2 is incredible, but that shit wasn't going to turn the war. It just helped the US and Soviet space programs. What's scary is if they put a lot of their eggs in the Me262 basket.. yikes..

Best looking of the bunch for sure.

I have been enjoying your content, but I think you should drop the spoken "chapter marks" like "Introduction" and "Prototypes." Saying those aloud makes your presentation sound a bit like that of a student reading his or her project in front of the class.

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

I’ve been wondering that myself. Is that for videos, audio podcasts or both? Thanks.

@MartinVeneroso

4 ай бұрын

@@worldofwarbirds Although I've only ever consumed your video content, I would think it's true for both video and audio-only.

@pedzsan

4 ай бұрын

Another channel does this as well and I’ve always thought it was kinda odd.

@krimke881

4 ай бұрын

Just video. For audio it's essential to include since you on tube video can separate and tag the chapters, as I see you haven't.

@MichaelRoy-hc3lz

4 ай бұрын

I liked it

At 7:47 - and 10:21 *Two He 177 bombers.* note: Same picture - mirrored.

great doco, thanks

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

You are welcome!

The Uberfortress could make the Kessel run in less then thousand years😂

@foenikxsfirebird3067

4 ай бұрын

I think the onstructionsplan had been sold to USA -by Messerschmitt ...😂😂😂

@comentedonakeyboard

4 ай бұрын

@@foenikxsfirebird3067 operation paperclip

@shawns0762

4 ай бұрын

I used to bullseye wamprats in my Uberfortress back home and they were less than two meters

@cefb8923

Ай бұрын

Many British spies died getting us this information..

[in a tone of puzzlement] Say! It struck me when showing the image of the Millennium Falcon, that given the advanced technology of the era that spacecraft was in, why was the front viewing area sectioned off in window frames? Why couldn't the nose of that spacecraft have a single solid, and unobstructed, transparent nose made out of a high-tech material/process?

@worldofwarbirds

27 күн бұрын

Don't start asking questions like that! Soon you'll be asking why they need to bank in a turn!

@bloqk16

27 күн бұрын

@@worldofwarbirds Good one! 👍 LOL

Great video.

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it

This was a terror weapon, not a bomb 'em into the Stone Age weapon. Imagine the chaos, more blackouts, and resources diverted to coastal aerial defense. Which the British had, not the US. It would have produced results far out of proportion to any actual damage.

7:11 V2 does not mean "version 2". It's German for "Versuchs" or "prototype".

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Thank you for informing me!

Problems with an Amerikabomber. 1) No escorts. Sending bombers to the US without fighter escort is essentially a suicide mission. 2) It would require not only the range to reach the US, but to be able to strike at targets that might be well inland. Which means flying over land and antiaircraft batteries. 3) Damaged bombers on the return trip would be unlikely to make it back. Which means ditching in the Atlantic... with low survivability.

A Six Engine Version crashed off the Coast of Maine at Owls Head. I knew Witnesses

I'm not certain the Amerikabomber concept made any sense beyond perhaps dropping leaflets. Assuming it was actually able to carry an effective bomb load to the US East coast or further, it would have been a one way mission, potentially suicide. The US had radar and ships at sea which might spot these and they could be expected to put a formidable interceptor force in the air to meet and down them before they could do much damage. No country had escort fighters with this kind of range and mid-air refueling was not available back then. Never really understood this.

Interesting! Nitpicking: Milch is not pronounced like Miltch, but like the German ch gutural sound or the Spanish j (San José)

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Thank you! I rely on the nitpicking to keep me honest! I usually check the non-English words with a pronunciation guide, but fell short this time.

@jonr6680

4 ай бұрын

Going out on a limb here, but is it a literal translation of 'milk'?

@localbod

4 ай бұрын

​@@worldofwarbirdsI would suggest simply using Google Translate and listening to the pronunciation of any German words. 👍

@bsdooby

4 ай бұрын

@@jonr6680 exactly 👍

@bsdooby

4 ай бұрын

@@worldofwarbirds BTW: I like your series about the Amerika Bomber program.

Times 7:50 and 10:21 could be _mistaken_ for the same mirror imaged *He 177s* being strafed, *twin* engine nacelles, *single* tall rectangular vertical stabiliser, that sort of thing. Not the two different Me 264 prototype attacks.

It was more like a B 17 in terms of size .

German B-24-29 Liberafortress....

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

I love it!

@Imnotyourdoormat

4 ай бұрын

@@worldofwarbirds 🙂😆😎

@jeffpotipco736

4 ай бұрын

Zwie und noinish luft balloons?

@Imnotyourdoormat

4 ай бұрын

@@jeffpotipco736 "Ya Vol".....hahahaha

When you see a B29 close up they actually look small.

@joemag6032

4 ай бұрын

On KZread I have seen an overhead photo of a B-36 beside a B-29. The impression that stuck with me was that the B-36 was gigantic.

No, not Uberfortress. This is not a word. Überfortress is correct.

@userbosco

4 ай бұрын

Actually, it was also to be used as a ride-sharing bomber and had an app. So, Uber was correct 😅

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Silly me, I had an excuse to use an über-cool umlaut and I blew it!

Great video

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Thanks!

The Me - 264 was a near copy of the Boeing model 334. See "Superfortress" by Curtis LeMay , page 30.

@davidkavanagh189

4 ай бұрын

No it most definitely was not

@Jonathan-dq8hb

4 ай бұрын

@@davidkavanagh189 Read the book. I didn't say it was exactly the same. There was a slight difference in the wings, and of course it used different wings.

@Jonathan-dq8hb

4 ай бұрын

...and of course it used different engines , I meant to say.

@williamzk9083

4 ай бұрын

The Me 264 flew in November 1942, and the B-29 flu two months early in September 1942. There’s not really any opportunity for the Germans to copy the B-29 in two months. Funding for development of the 264 was triggered by the signing of the Lend Lease Act in early 1941. Prior to that Messerschmitt had done some privately conceptual studies for maritime a reconnaissance bomber. -The Me 264 that flew in 1942 could only have gotten 1450 hp Jomo to 211J but needed 2250-2400hp class engines. These became available to the Germans in January 1945 in the form of the Juno 213E, DB603L and DB603H. They may have been able to conduct mine laying operations with lightly armed Me 264 using BMW801 or even Juno 211 by end of 1943. The these underpowered variants also had problems with requiring a very long runway that would be highly vulnerable to Allied bombing. The only way the German get through Me 264 in service time to make a difference is the stock development at the same time as the He 177 in early 1938 straight for the six engine stretched variant Me 264/6m. If it has the first flight in late 1939 just like the He 177 and entry in the Service 2 years latter in 1942 with standard engines it would cause a lot of problem for the convoys and for US Defences which would need to be massively, bolstered. You’d have to get rid of Milch who hated Willy Messerschmitt and all of the bungalows at emphasise dive bombing, but couldn’t push the excellent computing bomb sights. The Germans had that made dive bombing redundant in 1942

@Jonathan-dq8hb

4 ай бұрын

@@williamzk9083 Read the book. Plans for a long range bomber capable of reaching the U.S. started about 1940 , a year after Boeing developed the model 334.

Is it just me, or does the Heinkel He-277 look like a Lancaster with dihedral given to the horizontal stab?

@melchiorvonsternberg844

4 ай бұрын

Only with the small difference that the 277 was developed from the 177, which made its maiden flight before the war, long before Avro launched the Lancaster...

@johngregory4801

4 ай бұрын

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 True, but the Avro Manchester, which answered a RAF request (Specificatuon P 13/36) released the same year as the Luftwaffe's specification for the He-177, was a twin-engined bomber that had twin rudders. Unlike the Manchester, the first version Heinkel designed, the Heinkel He-177A, had a single vertical stab and rudder. This remained the same well into 1943 when the He-177B specification with four engines was requested by Goring. The first B model had a larger wing and the requisite four Daimler Benz engines, but still had a single rudder. The twin rudder arrangement came next. Oddly enough... This was well after the Manchester had grown into the Lancaster, which had not only flown for the first time, but was already flying over German cities dropping Britain's thanks for Hitler's devotion to "peace" when the He-177B got its twin-rudder arrangement.

@melchiorvonsternberg844

4 ай бұрын

@@johngregory4801 I would like to admit that. But you could also say that the same problems lead to similar solutions. This applies by far, and not just to technical problems. However, it is a bit strange to say that the first variant of the He 177 would not be a four-engine aircraft. It had the Daimler-Benz engine 610, which consisted of 2 coupled DB 605 engines and developed an output of 2900 hp, making it practically a 4 mot. The swipe at Hitler's "love of peace" was unnecessary. Because one could certainly say that Sir Winston's love of peace was not particularly strong when he was first Sea Lord in 1914. He was the greatest war agitator in the Asquit cabinet and thus became the gravedigger of the Empire...

@johngregory4801

4 ай бұрын

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 Conjoined V-12's doth not two engines make on either the. British or German planes. Ad for comparing Hitler with Churchill... One was a megalomaniac, one wasn't.

@melchiorvonsternberg844

4 ай бұрын

@@johngregory4801 Are you crazy? I didn't compare Hitler with Churchill. The Brit was a Germanophobe and the other was an Anglophile. That completely contradicts itself, doesn't it? But one thing is also completely certain. Churchill was not a man of peace. And because one played a crucial role in driving forward the expansion of the war in Europe in 1914, the other was later given the opportunity to become a warmonger. Because one thing is also completely clear... Without the stupid and audacious peace treaty of 1919, the Nazis would not have been possible. And there were people who already foresaw this. Surprisingly, it was the British who first saw what a mess they had done by entering the war without being directly threatened and felt guilty about it. The then British Prime Minister, Sir David Lloyd George, had already realized this in Versailles in the spring of 1919. He said: "One may strip Germany of her colonies, reduce her army to a mere police force, and reduce her fleet to the strength of a fifth-rate power. Nevertheless, in the end, when Germany feels that she has been treated unjustly in the peace of 1919, she will find means, to compel its conquerors to make restitution.To obtain recompense, our conditions may be severe, they may be harsh and even ruthless, but at the same time they may be so fair that the country upon which we impose them feels it in its heart have no right to complain. But injustice and arrogance, displayed in the hour of triumph, will never be forgotten nor forgiven. I can think of no stronger reason for a future war than that of the German people, who will certainly prove themselves to be one of the most vigorous and powerful tribes in the world, would be surrounded by a number of smaller states, some of which had never before been able to establish a stable government for themselves, but each of which would contain large numbers of Germans who longed for reunification with their homeland .” But that's exactly what happened! And since the emperor no longer existed as the highest authority (also a clever idea from the Entente), the idiot from Austria was able to become sole ruler. Curtain up, on the Nazi show...

God, no wonder they lost! And this is just for a north america bomber. They must have had half completed War material all over the continent. They should have kidnapped Lord Beaverbrook and forced him to straighten out their production problems!

@markusschmidt4597

4 ай бұрын

Deutschland hat den Krieg nicht verloren, weil wir weniger Ressourcen hatten, sondern weil die Angelsachsen die ganze Welt gegen uns in Stellung gebracht haben. Deutschland hat fast gegen die ganze Welt gekämpt,nur weil die Schwachsinnigen Staatsmänner aus Amerika England und Frankreich unbedingt einen Weltkrieg vom Zaume brechen wollten. Das selbe geschah im Korea Krieg,Irak Krieg, Afghanistan Krieg.Immer die selbe Vorgehensweise..Wie heißt es bei den Amis so schön: Die Koalition der Willigen. Von wegen, Deutschland hat den Krieg begonnen. Der Krieg ging,wie immer,von den Angelsachsen aus.

History is sprinkled with these "edge of the envelope" aircraft that never made it. The US had a number of these, post-WW2, but the numerous failed German designs have not been made widely public.

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

I like to research them and people seem to like hearing about them.

The correct pronunciation of Wever is "VEVER" not "WEAVER"

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Thank you!

ok wow great video thank you

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!!

Mate, you aren't supposed to read titles like that. Titles are only for the written word. If you're reading it out, you have different methods of indexing subjects.

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Thanks for the feedback

@QuintinvanRooyen1

4 ай бұрын

I think the reading of titles would be helpful for any vision impaired folks, or for people listening to a video like you would a podcast.

@pseudonym745

4 ай бұрын

What titles did he read out? I feel like it might be a somewhat strange question, but what titles?

I like the way you talk ,I think you are kind of funny.

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Informative and kind of funny is just what I'm aiming for!

Wow. I had no idea that the Germans had built such incredibly ugly airplanes. The JU 290 has a face that even a mother couldn't love! Blech! 🤣

@scootergeorge7089

4 ай бұрын

You think the Ju 87 Stuka looked good? 🤣

That ME 264 airframe and the aeroplane as a whole, was literally riddled with engineering faults and the results of a protracted poor quality build.

It was absurd attempting to build a bomber to attack America. What were they going to do, drop a few bombs on Manhattan Island or Boston? America is vast and spread out, most of the defense plants were located far inland or on the West Coast. The Germans should have focused on interdicting Allied shipping to England and Russia, a 4 engine bomber like the B-24 would come in real handy for that. As it was, transports like the Condor did good work even thought their structure was weak and they were underpowered for the bomber role in the Atlantic. If Germany could have based 4 engine bombers near L'Orient, France they could have really threatened allied shipping. Even the Italians had a viable 4 engine bomber, there is no excuse for Germany not having one.

@tatalan750

4 ай бұрын

The idea of an American Bomber wasn't to drop down thousands of bombs...one point was propaganda if they could cross the Atlantic they could attack all places on earth. The other point was the plan for a more powerful bomb which used only one plane. But the German leadership was thinking they needed this for another war and not for World War 2. That was the reason such planes and the bomb wasn't on a high priority plus there was a guy who showed them rockets which could do the job much cheaper.

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Lots of good points!

Thanks for a great vid. However Germany's Amerika bombers would have to take of from Europe, fly all the way to the US, drop their bombs and return. US bombers typically took of from the UK and later Italy. So the range quite a bit longer. Also, allied bombers were escorted and the German bombers, if they were ever put into action, would not have been. The entire project was simply unfeasible.

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Probably, but still an interesting concept!

Hey mate, don't drop the spoken "chapter marks" some of us listen to your content whilst working!

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

I may drop the clunky “pause chapter title pause” and just use a clear introductory sentence to indicate the beginning of a new section.

Intro music?

@worldofwarbirds

Ай бұрын

It is the RCAF March Past

seria genial que estuviera doblado al español

Curious AI generated 3 engined plane at 0:20.

What *IS* that music at the start?

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

RCAF March-past!

A10 rocket was cheaper and more effective.❤

Yes, it seems neither the Germans nor the Japanese put much thought into strategic bombings. The Japanese thought we would sue for peace and the Germans were ticked that the US was brought into the war at all. At least until they were ready. Lesson learned.

That is not General Milch. That is Ernst Udet

@nightjarflying

4 ай бұрын

At 6:22 it's Field Marshal Erhard Milch, not Udet

They had theju90 why they didntdevelope it further beats m.because the more important target lay in the east bhind the uralswhixh is where the s.u.maininwar industrylaybut if they had a heavy bomber by whichthe germansbritishmilitary installarions milicould be attacked at nightand deliver a heavy bomb load😮?

👍👍👍❤❤❤✈✈✈

AI Generated?

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

Not this one! The Me 264 was real!

I wonder why the Germans where so possesed by the twin horisontal stabilizers.

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

The Allies had quite a few with twin stabs too!

@mo07r1

4 ай бұрын

Oh idk, we had the P-38, B-24, B-25, XF-5, F-82, P-6, C-119 The British had the Lancastor, Manchester, and Halifax and probably a few others…So it’s not just a German thing

A bit amateurish. I suggest you drop the sing-song delivery and approach your narration more traditionally. Think Mark Felton. Drachinfel can be a bit cheeky which makes his videos interesting but he uses it sparingly. Mostly he is straight ahead serious and factual.

Interesting video, but not adding to knowledge of the subject.

Scheiss Amis 😅😅

Questionable channel. 123k views, 13.k subs,3.4k likes. Sketch.

If you're going go to do "easymoneycumentaries," at least learn how to pronounce German names. "Miltsch" - good grief!

@alfavulcan4518

4 ай бұрын

A perfect illustration of the difference between a constructive correction and a snotty know-it-all response

@worldofwarbirds

4 ай бұрын

If you're going to take the the time to comment, why not include the answer for everyone?

@Kevin-mx1vi

4 ай бұрын

​@@worldofwarbirds How's he supposed to do that when there is no way to spell a guttural pronunciation in English ?

@carstenbohme8813

4 ай бұрын

@@worldofwarbirdsIf you just dropped the 't' but kept the rest of you current pronunciation, that should be close enough. Though personally I don't mind if the names are a bit butchered.

@MrSimplyfantabulous

4 ай бұрын

Who regarded butchery as a disqualifier among Nazis?

+