🌟This video is not sponsored. If you want to help me make more videos and gain early access, consider supporting House of History at www.patreon.com/HouseofHistory!
@danielsantiagourtado34308 ай бұрын
Your videos are on a whole other level 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
@nickatkinson56928 ай бұрын
Rename the post to reflect the actual make up of the attacks, not just tje USA.
@mathewkelly99688 ай бұрын
Down voted for leaving any mention of Australia out , remove this and start again
@HoH8 ай бұрын
@@mathewkelly9968 That's simply not true. As a commenter pointed out, I mentioned Australia and their pilots contributing significantly at least 16 times, including specifics of their aircraft and flag. You see what you want to see, but I definitely did not "leave any mention of Australia out'
@julianmeagher90208 ай бұрын
@@mathewkelly9968 pay attention, and you will realise that Australia was mentioned quite often in video! You got my downvote for being lackadaisical!
@roderickdunn34648 ай бұрын
My step father took part in this battle. He was an Australian pilot flying a B25. He was awarded the US DFC for his actions in the battle. He described how the used "skip bombing" in their attack on the shipping. They had to get down to zero feet, release the bombs, and jump over the target to protect themselves from the blast. The bombs were supposed to be fitted with 7sec delay fuses. On one run they released their bombs, only together blown out of the air as the bombs had been fitted with instaneous fuses. He floated around the Bismarck sea for a couple of days before being picked up.
@johnschuh86168 ай бұрын
Raise a couple for your Dad!
@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe7 ай бұрын
Which Australian B25 unit? Based where? Please!
@roderickdunn34647 ай бұрын
I will have to look it up. His name was Jack Ivan Thomas Wilkinson bn 7/5/1923 so was 19/ 20 years old at the time. He was killed in a plane crash in the 1990s. Pilot flew a Cessna citation into a mountain near Atherton FNQ.
@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe7 ай бұрын
5th AF B17 Did that first. Where did all the Aussie units obtain All these American Aircraft? Curious with MacArthur and Kenney in charge.
@roderickdunn34647 ай бұрын
@@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe I looked it up he was with the 90th bomber squadron from 8/2/43 to 20/6/43. What I have doesn't mention where the were based. He was killed in an air crash on 14/5/90.
@willdsm088 ай бұрын
The Australians handled Kakoda alone, as well as most of the work on the other side of the range. The Americans helped with Lae, and some other areas, but the majority of the work was handled by Australians.
@rickyapps70408 ай бұрын
Exactly
@arthurlau988 ай бұрын
Please do not omit the Americans effort in Guadachannel. Marines and Japs knife fight in the island of death. And naval ships gone into numerous barfights with the lights knocked out that claim 2 US flag officers.
@GenesisSurovov8 ай бұрын
......but the thing that led to the Japanese giving the order to retreat from Kokoda was the sinking of those troop ships , which meant the seabourne invasion of Port Morseby could not proceed of which the troops heading over the Owen Stanely ridge were only playing a supporting role in. Before that the Japs were giving the Aussies hell and were about to break.
@lllordllloyd8 ай бұрын
One can't see Kokoda in isolation from Guadalcanal. They were in effect two fronts forcing the Japanese to make impossible choices.
@nicholasconder47038 ай бұрын
If you haven't already done so, I suggest watching Hypohystericalhistory for great documentaries on the New Guinea campaign.
@mattheide27758 ай бұрын
This is the first time I have heard of Straffer B-25s. As well as the ability to target specific weak points of enemy ships. Thanks for the video and this awesome channel❤
@EK-gr9gd8 ай бұрын
It's common knowledge for war historians. There's a TIME LIFE book series, The Second World War or History of Flight (America's Air War), in which a whole chapter deals with it.
@ald11448 ай бұрын
You should look them up because they are beautifully insane-looking with all the forward-firing guns. Up to 14 fifty-calibers. Imagine what that must have done to light-skinned ships.
@mattheide27758 ай бұрын
@@ald1144 Yes I will👍
@thedungeondelver8 ай бұрын
@@ald1144 14 .50, and some even mounted a 75mm howitzer in the nose.
@GenesisSurovov8 ай бұрын
weak points like strafing the life boats in the water from ships already sunk
@crazyviking248 ай бұрын
I could feel the excitement in your voice as you were narrating.
@EK-gr9gd8 ай бұрын
(4:22) That's a sequence of the the Doolittle Raid launch from USS HORNET.
@neilwilson57858 ай бұрын
I like the strategic context given at the start of the video. Then you move on to the tactical aspects. Good work!
@MakerBoyOldBoy8 ай бұрын
The Kokoda battle gets no coverage in stateside Guadalcanal accounts. Bad that. Kokoda conflict should not be ignored. It was good to read of the now legendary "Pappy" Gunn field modified medium bombers into a new kind of weapon. The B,-25H with the 75 caliber cannon proved less effective than planned. The photos and the plastic model kit I had as a kid sure looked cool. The "Strafers" story is fascinating. The Aussies were the first to engage the enemy in the Pacific and their efforts, again, are sadly unreported.
@Cbcw765 ай бұрын
Kokoda wasn't well covered because most participants were injured, damaged, killed. Apparently, TV studios and film newsreel groups didn't sign up for it in-time! ha ha
@hoilst2655 ай бұрын
@@Cbcw76 "Kokoda: Front Line!" by Damien Parer literally won the Best Documentary Oscar in 1943. It's on KZbin, look it up.
@mongolike5132 ай бұрын
@@Cbcw76MacArthur attributed victories to the U.S. forces while all setbacks belonged to the Commonwealth nations. Things have not changed the US still treats Australia as a colony .
@Cbcw762 ай бұрын
@@mongolike513 I still have Mac listed as a criminal, and always will. HIS STAFF did, too, according to Manchester's book, and according to Richard B. Franks' DOWNFALL. Franks asserts that, while radiation affects were poorly understood, Mac intentionally dismissed folks who'd educate him because he wanted to march 'HIS' troops thru bomb-zones. Then he said he's use Marines and Brit (maybe Indians?) - whom he never considered "his" except to kill. A criminal.
@richardbanker39102 ай бұрын
The account makes clear that the cannon and machine gun equipped Beaufighters blind sided the Japanese who had turned to “comb” the attacks by torpedo bombers which opened them up to be strafed and started the ball rolling for Mitchell’s, Wflying Fortresses and Havocs to carry on the attac.k
@peronik3498 ай бұрын
In the Pacific War we always talk about the US vs Japan battle, very rarely about the English and Australians. we also talk a lot more about the naval and naval air combat of fighters, the bombers seem completely absent from the theaters of operations. This forgotten battle involving US and Australian forces with more bombers than fighters deserves better, especially when we look at the results, even the cautious version is devastating for the Japanese forces
@johnschuh86168 ай бұрын
The Aussies were les adept at PR.
@wisconsinfarmer47428 ай бұрын
Aussies, damn good fellows to have in your corner, and the best at jungle warfare.
@peronik3498 ай бұрын
I never wanted to say that, apart from the nations very often represented in famous battles, all the other nations involved in this conflict did nothing notable. on the contrary, I find it regrettable that the individual exploits and other notable war events of all the nations involved do not have the same "media coverage" Australians, New Zealanders, Indians (Tamils; Siks....), Scots, Welsh, Indians of the US Great Plains, ..... all must have had their heroic acts, and their authors must receive the due recognition of history
@Cbcw768 ай бұрын
@@johnschuh8616NONE of the Allied combatants were suck-ups to Randolph Hearst's newspapers like their boytoy MacArthur was. Mac has Hearst reports in his HQ forces. They were like Soviet puppets, needing to rise first and cheer the loudest at every Mac speech and appearance, and turn in an ever-more-glowing report of his vast wisdom.
@tomref40018 ай бұрын
Yes it was THE ALLIES who won the war on all fronts against an evil AXIS. NATO is the Descendant of THE ALLIES and one party in the US is working WITH, not against an evil AXIS to hinder the modern day 'ALLIES', AKA NATO. 😎
@TheHypnogog8 ай бұрын
Love the strategic concepts here. The way they used Beaufighters and torpedo planes, and strafing "bombers"...that's how you use what you have to your best advantage. Impressive.
@chuckhaggard15848 ай бұрын
An outstanding and detailed read on this subject, and the wider air war in the area, is A War of Their Own, by Captain Rodman. This covers the history of the strafers, skip bombing, para frags, etc, including this battle.
@gtpumps8 ай бұрын
Australian Beaufighters were armed with 4 X 20mm cannon and 4 X 50 cal machine guns (not 0.303).
@johnschuh86168 ай бұрын
An excellent aircraft.
@g8ymw7 ай бұрын
@@inominate2024 That is wrong. We started putting 50 cal guns on later Spitfire marques instead of the 303 The 20mm cannons stayed Some Lancs were fitted with twin 50 cals instead of quad 303s at the rear One reason for the 303s staying so long on the bombers was "How far can you see in the dark" (I think that was Arthur Harris)
@robertsolomielke51346 ай бұрын
@@g8ymw Yes, I recall reading that late war RAF beau fighters were given 50.cal in the Pacific area, when operating in/near US logistics sphere . I read that in an aircraft book, and makes sense as the 50 was everywhere by then (over 1 million built by 45') and of course the 50 was better for exploding Jap gun crews. I know about the 50. used in late war Europe in RAF bombers, including the Halifax. A 1919 design still going strong today.....by numbers built I think mainly.
@robertsolomielke51346 ай бұрын
Yes. The Beaufighter Mk.21 was all Aussie build with 4X.50 cal in the wings, NO .303 were used in this version ,as they were getting good supply from US logistics, an yes .50 cal mania was in full tilt then.
@ericadams3428Ай бұрын
Not all of them and not in this case, first Beaufighter 21 (with 0.50 in lieu of .303) was delivered May 26, 1944, The Bismarck sea Beaus were mark 1C's with .303's.
@alexanderleach33658 ай бұрын
That battle shows the fury and the power of allied air power against the Japanese.
@AdmiralDevil8 ай бұрын
the allied pilots don't need a fair fight to win,they can be outnumbered 10:1 they don't care they see the enemy as a target
@VIDEOVISTAVIEW20208 ай бұрын
Its not surprising considering the overwhelming economic and industrial superiority of the USA over the much small Japanese island nation. What amazed me more is that the Japanese even lasted for more than six months after the pearl harbor attack considering the fact that they are fighting against the worlds richest country and with the worlds most powerful industrial capacity the US of A
@AdmiralDevil8 ай бұрын
@@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020 the states didn't have a wartime footing before pearl
@VIDEOVISTAVIEW20208 ай бұрын
@@AdmiralDevil the states did not a war footing prior to pearl harbor attack but the states is the worlds undisputed economic and industrial superpower since 1916 when it overtook the entire British Empire.
@mathewkelly99688 ай бұрын
Funny if you watch footage from this Battle it's shot from RAAF Beaufighters who cleared the decks of AA defences , would have been nice to include us in the Title
@mathewkelly99688 ай бұрын
@Steve-ou4vm you're a prime example of why you Americans need to stay in the US hiding behind your guns
@shawnc10163 ай бұрын
08:50
@thethirdman225Ай бұрын
@@shawnc1016 That's not in the title though, is it?
@shawnc1016Ай бұрын
@@thethirdman225Says "allied." That doesn't mean just US.
@thethirdman225Ай бұрын
@@shawnc1016 I mean on the picon. It says 'American Aerial Annihilation'.
@pablopeter35648 ай бұрын
EXCELLENTdescription of this historical event. Greetings from Mexico City. Thanks
@S0RGEx8 ай бұрын
The Yukikaze Curse strikes again. Everyone around her sinks while she emerges unharmed.
@jaimeosbourn36166 ай бұрын
Shigure had the same reputation.
@LeonDixon-c6z8 ай бұрын
It was just as much Australian than American.
@mohammedsaysrashid35878 ай бұрын
An informative and wonderful historical coverage video about Bismarck sea naval battle between Japanese convoys and allies air forces... during WW2 in the Pacific Ocean video shared by an excellent ( house of history) channel.
@JohnThomas7 ай бұрын
Yes, good video, but there are some small inaccuracies, most that involve a failure to adequately cover the substantial Australian contribution. This was a major "Allied Annihilation", not an "American Annihilation".
@frankeimer39068 ай бұрын
Thankyou for the uploads from this older Canuck
@marwil48128 ай бұрын
This is the next blockbuster KZbin channel. It will be at 1 million subscribers in no time.
@HenriHattar8 ай бұрын
With bullshit content I sincerely doubt it.
@cheften2mk8 ай бұрын
One could say the Japanese got a revenge by sinking the US carrier named after this battle in 1945
@briandstephmoore49108 ай бұрын
I’ll raise you 2 spicy suns
@GenesisSurovov8 ай бұрын
Banzai !
@studleyjb31728 ай бұрын
One could say while the Japanese were trying to prolong the war with kamikaze s, their cities were getting blown to smithereens.
@willn7038 ай бұрын
@@studleyjb3172 more like burnt to a cinder. The fire bombings were doing far more damage than either nuke.
@Chino567518 ай бұрын
Then they still lost
@somebodyelsestoo8 ай бұрын
Bow-fort as in Bowfighter
@peterireland43448 ай бұрын
Both Beauforts and Beaufighters.
@JZsBFF7 ай бұрын
Beau as in Beautiful actually.
@brom18576 ай бұрын
@JZsBFF Not in British English, certainly - 'Bow' is right (as in 'Crossbow' - not in 'take a bow') - a confusing language!!
@JZsBFF6 ай бұрын
@@brom1857 Considering that England has been a French colony since 1066, that there's more French, (Dutch and German) blue blood in the English royal veins and finally that there's "Beau Geste"...
@brom18576 ай бұрын
@@JZsBFFExactement, Mon ami!
@gabrielgodinho31878 ай бұрын
The IJN Yukikaze is one of the luckiest ships in the entire war.
@mikemcguire11608 ай бұрын
Or the worst jinx on the Japanese side, having been present at the defeats at Midway, Bismarck Sea, Leyte Gulf, and the sinking of the Yamato.
@gabrielgodinho31878 ай бұрын
@@mikemcguire1160 it all depends on which ship you're stationed.
@danielsantiagourtado34308 ай бұрын
You're amazing! Thanks For this 😊😊😊❤❤❤
@kerrygibbs81987 ай бұрын
This was an excellent informative video about a battle that I did not know of. You made it interesting and gave clear information. Of course I gave this a thumbs up.
@brokenbridge63168 ай бұрын
This was a fun battle to listen too.
@stevep54088 ай бұрын
Shooting up lifeboats? Not a complaint by Japan. What a brutal theater of war!
@minhthunguyendang99008 ай бұрын
The rescued IJA soldiers would fight another day.
@minhthunguyendang99008 ай бұрын
Historians compare it with the Eastern front. With justification
@markingelin97738 ай бұрын
The rescued IJA soldiers would be without ratios or heavy equipment.
@freefall98324 ай бұрын
Killing enemy combatants is what war is. It is best when the enemy isn't shooting back. It would be different if they had surrendered.
@JamesSavik8 ай бұрын
It took a long time for the USAAF to realize that level bombing moving naval targets was useless. In fact, the newspapers reported that the B-17s had done the damage at Midway, and the Navy didn't correct it. The Navy didn't want to shatter their misconceptions if the Japanese didn't know!
@Paul-zf8ob7 ай бұрын
Let’s be somewhat honest…Japan suffered so many losses due to not having radar!
@oceanhome20237 ай бұрын
Effective Radar !
@iconiccavalier224023 күн бұрын
No somewhat about it. The only effective countermeasure to radar at the time WAS radar. Not having it was always going to be detrimental to the IJN
@JamesWells-n2s7 ай бұрын
All these years later the US/UK/ANZAC alliance still exists...thank God...good on you Mates...America will always have your backs.
@davidgaine4697Ай бұрын
What I don’t understand is how Australia and Israel qualify for the Eurovision Song Contest. Turkey has a European side and Kazakhstan is a former Soviet Republic and is considered part of Eastern Europe but come on! Australia isn’t even in the same hemisphere. What’s next? South Africa, Zimbabwe? Because they are English speaking? Perhaps India should be invited or god forbid China!
@jackolantern101dfa317 күн бұрын
@@davidgaine4697 bro what?
@Titus-as-the-Roman8 ай бұрын
Pappy Gunn with his converted B-25's & A-20's, the B-25's having as many as 14 forward facing .50 Brownings, a few had 75 mm Howitzers (which proved too hard on the airframe), along with the Bristol Beaufighter, the most American British Fighter and it's 4- 20 mm cannons absolutely laid waste to Japan's commercial fleet, with the damage the Subs were also doing, which no news was heard, the Silent Service, Japan lost all ability to transport goods during the day.
@g8ymw7 ай бұрын
Would I be right (or close to the mark) in saying that the strafing B25s were inspired by the Beaufighter? I know most Beaufighters used down there were built in Australia
@Titus-as-the-Roman7 ай бұрын
@@g8ymw not really Pappy Gunn was a tinkerer and just went off on his own and customized a B-25. The Beaufighter, my fav.
@thethirdman225Ай бұрын
@@g8ymw I believe the Beaus used in this battle were English-built. They were still equipped with four cannon and six .303 machine guns. Only the later, Australian-produced Beafighters had four .50 cals. That wasn't until early 1944.
@wiltonlewis53698 ай бұрын
It wasn't just the Yanks fighting in this action.
@HoH8 ай бұрын
I hope I made it clear enough the Australians participated, including their flags, planes and mentions.
@rickyfrax56028 ай бұрын
U did
@wiltonlewis53698 ай бұрын
@@HoH not in the title
@whispofwords25908 ай бұрын
@@wiltonlewis5369he mentioned it several times in the video..
@craigkeating59488 ай бұрын
@@HoHYou didn’t. For example, you could have mentioned how the skip bombing technique was introduced by a Royal Australian Air Force officer into the Pacific war, drawing on British and German practice, for example. Or the fact that the USAAF drew on Australian aircrew to make up numbers in some of the USAAF squadrons involved,
@capnstewy558 ай бұрын
Strafing the ships first certainly impacts the AA gunners' effectiveness.
@GenesisSurovov8 ай бұрын
what about strafing the lifeboats afterwards , how does that affect things ? But saying that straffing a warship with AA guns mounted on it is more detrimental to the aircraft than to the ship , you could only offset this if you had your torpedo divebombers follow through immediately afterwards .
@stevebrickshitta8708 ай бұрын
@@GenesisSurovovthe decksx were hosed clean of AA. Complete aerial superiority, and minimal losses. Survivors on rafts and Lifeboats were mopped up. This was merely responding to the japanese precedent of shooting down parachuting aircrew which had occurred just prior to this battle, the Australians particularly relished the returning of this favour. There are numerous newsreels from the time of Beaufighters actually doing this, but as it was considered an invasion fleet, and they were not flying a white flag, they were considered targets. BTW, please get off the high horse regarding war crimes. Japan has no leg to stand on. You have the freedom from their war crimes to make such statements, and the West's memory is story, but don't try telling that shite to a Chinese or Korean audience.
@blueycarlton8 ай бұрын
@@GenesisSurovov The RAAF Beaufighters flying at mast height blasted the bridge with their 4 cannons thus disabling the ships ability to manoeuvre. The Japanese mistook them for Beaufort torpedo bombers and turned to face them to minimise a torpedo attack, but left themselves open to attack on the bridge and forward deck. Earlier a RAAF Catalina had been shadowing the convoy, they contacted base and said they were returning due low fuel. The reply left the pilot dumbfounded. It was something like, to stay as long as you can, torpedo bombers are on the way. He couldn't believe a message like that would be sent on an open channel. However it was deliberate, the Japs picked up that message, they expected a torpedo attack. Both the USAAF and the RAAF took part in straffing lifeboats.Those soldiers would have been fighting and killing our troops if they had survived.
@GenesisSurovov8 ай бұрын
@@blueycarltonThank you for that, I actually learnt something new. I get that about the troops being killed in the water and that makes sense to me now there just seems to be a difference between the rules of war in the Pacific theatre and Europe. My Grandfather was the Bosun on The RMS Windsor Castle a British troop ship that got sunk off the Algerian coast by German torpedo bombers and 4000 troops went into the water . There were countless oppurtunities for The Germans to strafe the troops in the water with German Aircraft dominating the skies there yet there was an old rule once in the water they were not to be killed , The Germans honoured this. I lived in Japan for a while and the straffing of those troops in the water at the bismarck sea is a real war crime to them They are sore on that . When the shoe was on the other foot the Japs honoured the rule like the Germans did. During the battle off Samar when the Japanese destroyed 'Taffy 3' The victorious Japanese cruisers sailed through where the American destroyers went down with sailors in the water . The sailors said the cruisers went through with the Japanese officers on deck at the salute to the Americans in the water. The japs also when they sunk repulse and Prince of Wales nor at the battle of Java sea never straffed men in water .
@jaimeosbourn36166 ай бұрын
@@GenesisSurovov The Japanese refuse to surrender. This was known. Letting them get ashore or be re-equipped and sent back in was stupid. So they were shot. Big deal.
@ericgrace99958 ай бұрын
I looked at the headline and gave it a miss Weren't the Aussies heavily involved in this fight ? Can't wait for your episodes on the great American victories at Austerlitz and Trafalgar.
@uncletimo60598 ай бұрын
same
@HoH8 ай бұрын
I hope I made it clear enough the Australians participated, including their flags, planes and mentioning them lots of times.
@scottcannell55848 ай бұрын
Yeah you definitely right about the RAAF were indeed involved in the battle of Bismarck sea. It seems funny how America always seems to miraculously win every single battle in the pacific campaign without the help of their allies. 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
@uncletimo60598 ай бұрын
@@scottcannell5584 to be fair, USA on the naval and air side did 95%+ of the effort. the japanese land army was really fought by the chinese kuomintang and chinese people, which nobody wants to notice.
@uncletimo60598 ай бұрын
@@HoH not in the title, bub
@rickyapps70408 ай бұрын
Australian Aerial Annihilation........
@anthonyc84998 ай бұрын
This was a helluva video. Thank you!
@HoH8 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it!
@David-ic4by7 ай бұрын
A-20 Havocs (aka “Boston”) also played a major role in Bismarck Sea.
@nicholasconder47038 ай бұрын
What this video does not mention is that skip bombing was invented by the British. My father was trained to conduct skip bombing attacks in 1941 by the people who developed the technique in 1940. He was always annoyed when he read that "the Americans developed skip bombing".
@Arcalargo8 ай бұрын
This video doesn't mention anyone inventing the tactic.
@KakashiInWinter3 ай бұрын
I have read that the British invented extreme low-level bombing but not skip bombing. Other sources say that the British came up with the idea but were unable to apply it effectively and gave it up. I have no idea how accurate any of that is, but there does seem to be some difference of opinion out there.
@thethirdman225Ай бұрын
Bull Garing liked to point out that RAF Coastal Command Sunderland flying boats were using 'skip bombing' from day one in WWII. He'd know. He was flying them.
@davidgaine4697Ай бұрын
I’m sure the technique would have been developed during the interwars. Most military theorists agreed airplanes had the potential to decimate sea going crafts. Running the gauntlet of surface raiding while staying invisible to air attack was impossible except when conditions kept aircraft grounded. The philosophy of calculated losses was upper most in the Japanese strategy. If they could hold their perimeter and keep the Allies bottled up at Komodo then they could have sued for peace and kept their Empire. It was nothing to do with invading Australia. They didn’t have the resources for an invasion and were tied up in China. It was all about tying up their gains and access to resources like rubber and oil that they had in abundance in Indonesia. China was seen as a resource of slave labour and Manchuria as a huge rice paddy to feed the folks at home. They would have been happy with a stand off. For the Allies total war meant the destruction of the Axis Forces. Hitler called Churchill psychotic in his absolute refusal to accept defeat. Some irony there. Drawing a line under the sand was not an option for the Western Democracies. They saw totalitarianism as an anathema and an obstruction to global commerce. War economies were naturally inflationary and this was unsustainable and contrary to capitalist ideals. Arch conservatives like Roosevelt, Churchill and De Gaul considered Fascism no better than Communism. Controlled economies would only lead to disaster as had been witnessed in the Soviet Union, the original Marxist experiment.
@thethirdman225Ай бұрын
@@davidgaine4697 🤦🏽
@johnharrington18003 ай бұрын
Beautifully presented story. Superb graphics.
@notreallydavid7 ай бұрын
'Byuforts' Oof! Great video - thanks for posting.
@gangster35918 ай бұрын
Superb! Thankyou. Subscribed
@daviddaigrepont94858 ай бұрын
I'd heard the story before but your visuals enhanced hearing it again. Have you done the battle of Midway yet?
@briancooper21128 ай бұрын
B-26 also played a cruical role! Especially at Midway!
@markingelin97738 ай бұрын
I don't think there were any B26s in this battle.
@davidgaine4697Ай бұрын
I think that’s the point! It’s like saying the B27’s did a good job as well…
@briancooper2112Ай бұрын
@@davidgaine4697 B27?
@krismurphy77118 ай бұрын
ANOTHER development was the "Parafrag".....a parachute bomb that could be dropped during VERY low level raids. The 8-10 nose gun B25s were devastating....LIKE the A10s in The Future...which could suppress infantry and destroy anything with it's cannon.
@mickvonbornemann38248 ай бұрын
My Uncle was a B25 pilot in the Bismarck Sea battle with the Netherlands East Indies Airforce in exile as part of the RAAF. He had nightmares the rest of his life after being ordered to straf Japanese survivors in the water.
@johnschuh86168 ай бұрын
Surely he knew that this was what the Japanese expected? Certainly they fight to the last man and neither expected nor gave quarter.
@markingelin97738 ай бұрын
What would the survivors fight with before the sharks ate them?
@EagleHawk1758 ай бұрын
I'm predicting that yukikaze will feature in future pacific theatre videos.
@nicholasconder47038 ай бұрын
Yes, she will survive to fight the Gamilons ...
@justsayen20246 ай бұрын
The B-25 Mitchell's were flying tanks. The sound of all the guns shooting must have been insane.
@KHK0018 ай бұрын
Amazing work as always!
@HoH8 ай бұрын
Thank you! Cheers!
@geoff12018 ай бұрын
Is a Byoofort anything like Beaufort?
@kenkleinsasser81658 ай бұрын
0:16 I’m just starting the video but I’m interested in hearing how this was more decisive than the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.
@minhthunguyendang99008 ай бұрын
It was the Year Of Touch-And-Go in the Pacific. The Japanese were still 💪 on land. & more importantly, knew how to compensate their loss of air superiority by their prowess in surface naval battles especially at night, as Guadalcanal shew. The IJN after their total victory at Savo, had the 🇺🇸 MC bridgehead at their mercy. Had they followed up in the night, there won’t be “Guadalcanal” to name US Navy ships with. 2 years later, the same opportunity, amplified times 10, presented itself at Leyte, again to the IJN who again failed 😞 😨 😣 to seize it despite Halsey’s blunder for 😨 to keep up to date about IJN strength : he overestimated their planeless carriers & underestimated their battleships. Were it not for the 🇺🇸 steel hearts inside the tin cans, the Leyte bridgehead would have been wiped out.
@FastEddy19598 ай бұрын
Small correction: the Japanese attacked Midway not to take it but to draw out the carriers so their picket of submarines could pick them off. The whole purpose of midway was the carriers, and the Americans turned it on its head by leaving before the subs were in place. Instead of the Japanese laying in wait for the American carriers, it was those carriers that were waiting for the Japanese.
@patrickbrinkmeier18588 ай бұрын
That's not really accurate at all. You are gathering your info from movies instead of history books. Yes, the Japanese wanted to attack Midway in order to get the US carriers to respond so the Japanese could then sink them.....That part of your statement is accurate. However, Japan FULLY intended to also invade and occupy Midway. After Navy Intel sent out the fake radio transmission saying the salt water desalination machine on Midway was broken Japan loaded the equipment onto a ship to bring to Midway so that the Japanese troops that would be occupying it would have fresh water. Japan wanted not only to sink the American carriers, but to seize Midway to have Japanese troops so close to the US so that once the US surrendered that Japan would be able to keep that island for itself in the future. The actual Japanese Battle plans called for a ground invasion and permanent occupation of Midway.
@MagpieOz7 ай бұрын
The Japanese forces included a landing force of some 5000men. They were very much there to take the island
@chrisgrantham84427 ай бұрын
The Japanese intended to occupy Midway as a early warning against American expansion (they feared a Pearl harbor type of attack against the home islands) as well as destroy the American carrier's, and sent a force of 2 fast battleships, 4 heavy cruisers and the light carrier Zuiho, with attendant destroyers, transports and tankers under the command of Vice-Admiral Kondo for the task but they remained 700 miles west of Midway while the main strike force was to destroy the American forces and missed the main fleet action on the 4th, but the invasion force was attacked on 3rd by 9 high level B17's from Midway but no damage was done until 4 PBY Catalinas attacked at night on the 4th, lightly damaging a tanker, still hoping for a victory after the losses on the 4th, Yamamoto ordered all his remaining ships to attack, but while moving into position for a dawn bombardment of Midway on the 5th, 2 of his heavy cruisers collided while evading the American submarine Tambor causing them to fall behind when Yamamoto (realizing the true extent of his losses) ordered a retirement at 0255 on June 5th, which resulted in the Mikuma being sunk and the Mogami heavily damaged.
@FastEddy19597 ай бұрын
@@MagpieOz Yes, but actually taking Midway was a secondary concern. Remember, they thought it was going to take the USN two or three days to react.
@Cbcw765 ай бұрын
The Japanese had FULL and total commitment to take Midway. It was their Day One goal. Even during planning, the Army was raising concerns about supplying Midway's occupiers but the IJN was always Mr. Sunshine about supplying troops. "How'd that work out by Oct, 1942 at Guadalcanal? Anyone hungry? Need clothing, medical supplies, ammo?" And maybe worse... in Tokyo, Tulagi was 'just across the channel' and those troops had NO problems with disease. Tulagi had no malarial mosquitoes. Guadal had 'em all. The Tokyo Brass said that's not possible, Guadal folks are just weak and whiny. Gee - ya believe 10 but ya don't believe 1,000?!! The Allies are SO LUCKY that the big IDIOTS R US signs hung over military HQs in Tokyo.
@johnforrester91208 ай бұрын
Americans didn’t fight along the track
@JohnThomas7 ай бұрын
Yes, and most of the damage caused to the convoy came from Australian aircraft. "Australian Annihilation" is a more accurate video title than "American Annihilation".
@DriveLaken8 ай бұрын
14:00 to 14:25 This is the type of History we don’t hear about often, if ever. As a patriotic American, I still want to hear about this type of history and the thought it creates…
@goodshipkaraboudjan8 ай бұрын
A lot of those USAAF B-25s had RAAF crew (not pilots) onboard to fill the gap. During the battle some Aussies flew on their planes then jumped into crew US ones.
@roderickdunn34647 ай бұрын
You are not correct. My stepfather was the pilot, the second pilot was a yank, the radio operator was a yank, and the gunner was an Aussie.
@goodshipkaraboudjan4 ай бұрын
@@roderickdunn3464 That's exactly what I mentioned RAAF crews flew on US planes...
@paulsanderson95868 ай бұрын
Very good video on how US and Allies adopted multiple attack aircraft types, and how the seas to reinforce the island bases were now under serious threat. Illustrates yet again how Japan's industry was unable to mount a comparable air campaign in 42?
@JohnThomas7 ай бұрын
"Allies annihilate" would be a more accurate headline, but maybe that would not earn as many views.
@oweneather14357 ай бұрын
On Australia's contribution, much discussion in comments may benefit from these facts; * THe Australian Army, especially its core Australian Imperial Force crack divisions, was the largest land force fighting in the Pacific from 1941 through to mid 1943. Whilst the US Navy was undoubtedly substantial, the US Army wasn't, along with the US Marine Corps, both, apart from the standing division that landed on the Solomons, months after Australian forces were in Papua New Guinea. * Australian fkrces in PNG wre not, largely untrained or like " National Guard. Two Militia battalions, conscripted but relatvely well trained and led by AIF officer, mainly, bore the brunt of the first assaults by the division sized IJA force of Malaya veterans trained in jungle warfare. They did very well and were releived about half way on the Kokoda Track by an AIF brigade. AIF brigades continued the main fighting all the way back to Gona on the North Coast. The US 32nd National Guard Division, rushed across the Pacific poorly prepared, did not fight on the Track. They failed as a unit in the first assault on Buna, but many individuals showed bravery and initiative. Assisted by an AIF in the van, Buna was finally taken. * The Australian Army grew from three divisions to thirteen, the second largest Allied force in the Pacific, after the US Army swelled to twenty two and ahead of the US Marine Corps' six. * From 1942, it was successful in battalion, brigade, division, corps and army scale operations, jungle combat, amphibious and airborne. It was the premier Jungle Warfare formation of the Allies, starting the first Allied school, the Jungle Training Centre in Queensland, in 1942. As well, it devised the world's first effective air maintenace system in PNG, in 1942, assisted by the 5th Air Force, developing specialist units and methodology that, by 1943, was able to supply entire divisions by air. * the RAAF, with an eventual 3 - 4000 aircraft, was not insignificant, especially in tactical, command and war experience. * Group Captain Bill Garing, AOC 9 Operational Group, in PNG, bought extensive surface attack, command systems and operational experience, especially in maritime settings, to the South West Pacific. He set up the successful RAF type operational control systems for tasking and command of Allied air units retained until war's end. * low level skip bombing and torpedo attacks were part of this experience executed in RAAF squadrons and passed to Gen Kenny in the 5th Airforce. * carrying out extensive reconnaisance of the likely shipping route, he insisted on, first, .ulti level and waves of attack and then, rigorous practice of this plan, over two days. Kenny agreed. * this contribution was absolutely vital to the success of the Bismark Sea operation. US senior and mid rank leadership did not have Garing and the RAAF'S leadership's European experience to draw upon, thus the strategic and command ppwwr was amplified . Yes, Australians well remember the support we gained from America. At the same time, Australia's contribution was not insignificant.
@greenflagracing70675 ай бұрын
Reputable historians always acknowledge the enormous contributions of the IAF. Eric Bergerud's Touched By Fire being a good example. In the future, where necessary, you might want to explain Australian unit designations and descriptions, as American readers may not be familiar with the style.
@numbersletters38863 ай бұрын
The Aussie’s, Dutch, Brit’s, carried the Pacific until the US fought through to them. The Aussie’s stopped the Japanese from total domination. And they fought against the peek of the Japanese might…. I’ve been reading about the Dutch as well, they fought with Antiquated Equipment, they must have know they were delaying until the US and British could scale and fight through.
@greenflagracing70673 ай бұрын
@@numbersletters3886 "carried the Pacific"? no. ABDA was dissolved by March '42. 2AIF campaigned in New Guinea, the US in the Solomons that summer. No shade on the 2AIF but it did not stop the Japanese from total domination. The USN early on secured the supply route to Australia and stopped the seaborne invasion of Port Moresby in the battle of the coral sea.
@oweneather14353 ай бұрын
@greenflagracing7067 Thank you. Yes, I should have mentioned Prfessor Bergerud. If you forgive an indulgence, in his book " Touched with Fire", he describes the Australian soldier as, "...the best Infantry in the Pacific".
@thethirdman225Ай бұрын
@@oweneather1435 Bergerud is very forthcoming in his acknowledgement of Australia. I have only read _'Fire in the Sky'_ but even in that he makes a point of saying where Australia got it right and there are plenty of examples of that given.
@Outlier9998 ай бұрын
But they were not omitted. I admit the Australian contribution was under reported. Interesting that RAN and USN aircraft took no part in the battle.
@goodshipkaraboudjan8 ай бұрын
The RAN didn't really have aircraft at the time. The spotter planes on larger fleet units were operated by the RAAF. For the USN I guess it was too risky at the time to forward deploy carriers there. It wasn't until post war Australia got carriers anyway.
@Outlier9997 ай бұрын
@@goodshipkaraboudjan I see. Thank you.
@Twirlyhead8 ай бұрын
Thumbnail title is shite. US pilots were involved but the Australian Beaufighters broke the ships' defences.
@thethirdman225Ай бұрын
Totally.
@richardneufeld5457 ай бұрын
Its good to see that the shooting of helpless survivors from sinkings was not omitted from your report. This was done by the Allied forces as well as the Axis. It was brutal on both sides.
@SpenzOT6 ай бұрын
It started because word passed around about a p38 pilot getting shot in their parachute by one of the escorting zeros. The japanese were already well-known for their atrocities at this point. The zero focusing on a helpless pilot was the last straw.
@greenflagracing70675 ай бұрын
also done by PT boats and submarines, because Japanese rescued could return later as combatants.
@freefall98324 ай бұрын
War is about killing the enemy whenever you get the chance. They weren't prisoners and hadn't surrendered.
@richardneufeld5454 ай бұрын
@freefall9832 not always the case, allied forces killed surrendered soldiers too. The Japanese were just much worse at doing this.
@freefall98324 ай бұрын
@@richardneufeld545it's always a nightmare when you hand youngsters weapons and go to war.
@scottdewey036 ай бұрын
I liked this; it was quite good and interesting. My fellow Americans are much too unaware of the whole long struggle over the South Pacific.
@richardstone55528 ай бұрын
Thanks
@marksummers4638 ай бұрын
No the citory at Midway only bput us distantly in the same league with the Japanese. We were still BADLY outgunned and losing till the end of the Guadalcanal campaign.
@jamiemawer48658 ай бұрын
I would argue the most decisive aerial victory of World War 2 was the Battle of Britain. If we'd lost that, what other aerial battles would there have been?
@wolfu5976 ай бұрын
The strafing B25 that attacked admiral Kimuras flagship, the Shirayuki, was piloted by captain Ed Larner, the leader of the 'The Grim Reaper' Squadron. As he was making his attack run, two more B25's also wanted to take a shot at the Shirayuki. Ed Larner got on the radio, and told em': "get of my tale and get your own damn boat."
@robertsolomielke51346 ай бұрын
Nice grit story..The B25 was an army medium bomber, and the grim reapers were (are) a USN squadron which bombed my town's airport in an friendly "exercise" as NATO stuff. So Ed Larner transfered to the RAAF then ?
@notthefbi79328 ай бұрын
A Bismarck I've never heard 🤔
@raymondtonns25216 ай бұрын
thank you for this description of this vital but not oft told battle
@inominate20246 күн бұрын
Those Byoofts were Beaufighters, pronounced Bow-fighter. Beauforts were torpedo bombers. Beaufighters were called by the Japanese “Whispering Death, because their sleeve valve radial engines lacked the clatter of poppet valve engines. They were also called the “Ten gun terror”. that Australian DAP Beaufighter variant had 6 x 0.5” machines guns and 4 x 20mm cannons, as well,as rockets or bombs. The Torbeau was a torpedo variant.
@frankfreeman14447 ай бұрын
Well done, c!ear and concise presentation!
@minhthunguyendang99008 ай бұрын
Twice in ww2 in both 🌊 oceans the “Bismarck” name spelt DOOM for the Axis.
@kristelvidhi50385 ай бұрын
If only WW2 from Space was a full series instead of just a movie.
@trevorford5498 ай бұрын
Australians airforce was there as well the US didnt do this alone
@JohnThomas7 ай бұрын
The RAAF also inflicted more damage on the Japanese convoy
@asteropax64693 ай бұрын
Something of particular interest was an intelligence boom as a result of this battle. Several Japanese survivors of the attack managed to reach nearby islands. Australian patrols succeeded in killing/capturing many of the survivors. The Australians proceeded to investigate the boats the Japanese used to land on the islands. One of these boats had documents stashed onboard. Upon translation, these documents were discovered to be a copy of the Japanese Army List. This means the allies now had a list of officer names, units, and postings of their opponents. Now intel reports mentioning specific officers could be correlated to their unit. This also revealed units the allies were unaware of previously.
@RalphieboyАй бұрын
Great post!
@madmonsterbbb91313 ай бұрын
HoH: B-25H with a 75mm cannon & 8 MGs Me: is that the PBJ-1H?
@victoriawilliams61562 ай бұрын
It is truly unfortunate, but more information was not provided regarding the Australian involvement. However, the detail offered in the actual battle with plane on ship specifics, was fascinating.
@drydogg7 ай бұрын
Great video, Sir!
@robertpayne90096 ай бұрын
Thanks!
@ALRIGHTYTHEN.8 ай бұрын
14:00 I don't know what quarter an aircraft would normally give to naval forces.
@billmelater-rb6vt8 ай бұрын
Why did you list general Doug in charge of invasion shown?
@PhilipDarragh7 ай бұрын
Like 2C a vid abt the Australian coast watchers 2 learn abt their contributions 2 Victory. Tks.😊
@gordingram43754 ай бұрын
I'd be interested in hearing about HMCS Haida and HMCS Athabaska.
@HarveyDangerLurker8 ай бұрын
Never been this early.
@Dave5843-d9m8 ай бұрын
The British developed a smaller version of the dam buster bouncing bomb to be launched in pairs by Mosquitoes. Test pilot Eric Brown proved that a high speed twin engine aircraft could be landed on a carrier. The war ended before the Highball could be used.
@gkess71067 ай бұрын
“Sneak” attack.
@-VOR8 ай бұрын
😂 the "surprise" attack at pearl harbor" lol. Please see the McCollum Memorandum.
@mattw7858 ай бұрын
good video
@BoxStudioExecutive8 ай бұрын
It would have been good for the video to explain what masthead and skip bombing were
@Hawkeye20018 ай бұрын
I would love to know more about the British aircraft carrier that was loaned to the US under the name "Robin" - I have only read limited accounts.
@roybennett92847 ай бұрын
Look up utube chanel ,"armoured carriers" there's heaps of good stuff about the British Pacific fleet, commonly known as the forgotten fleet.
@therealunclevanya8 ай бұрын
I would have thought "The Battle of Britain" was far more "the most important aerial battle of WW2". Had the RAF not stopped the Lutfwaffe at that point, WW2 would have been a Pacific only affair by '43
@HoH8 ай бұрын
I am inclined to agree. The title is a quote from General George Kenney, who referred to the battle as such.
@johnschuh86168 ай бұрын
From all reports, the Germans were not prepared for this particulate fight. Their pilots and plane were trained in close air support. They had only two engine bombers. Because the Commander in favor of strategic bomber was killed early in a plane crash, it was left to Goering to make crucial decisions. He would not even let the German Navy have planes, which would greatly have enhanced the killing powers of the U-Boats! The Navy and the Army had outstanding commanders, but the Air Force an Italian style Commander.
@jackpine10338 ай бұрын
This is good. I would like better maps though.
@frankcomando84408 ай бұрын
General Ennis was deputy commader 5th Air force Kenney was commader of the 81 and Whitehead as deputy commader ran the 5th Airforce from MacArthur's commanders
@joycekoch57466 ай бұрын
I had a uncle who back in the 1970's told me about flying these missions. I recall him saying he flew a B-24 and it was modified not with bombs but with a weird configuration of machine guns of both 30 cal and 50 cal machine guns so he had about 16 of them firing from the wings and nose. He said coming in he had so much firepower that the Japanese with machine guns on the deck of the ships would just disappear in red sprays and the ships would ignite when the ammunition and fuel were hit. The destruction was so far beyond anything he ever expected that he felt kind of guilty about it as if it was not war but simply slaughter.
@1982nsu7 ай бұрын
Quite a few bloopers in this video. Many are mentioned in the comments. I'll add to the list... 04:22 wrong photo. The photo depicts a B-25 from the Doolittle Raid taking off from USS Hornet in 1942. It was the only time that a B-25 took off from a carrier.
@rickyapps70408 ай бұрын
How Australian pilots won the most decisive battle..........
@markcollins65788 ай бұрын
slightly wrong - not well coordinated but lucky. The Us had no experience in fighting at sea where as the Japanese had - against USSR & China. The inexperience meant they did wave(s) (interval) attacks rather than a mass attack. This resulted in the Japanese miscalculating the correct strategy pre engagement meaning the aircover used too much fuel and became ineffective. Standard operating procedure for ammo in planes was every 4th was tracer (aid aiming) and the rest armour piercing. A note also that the US command ordered boats and planes to destroy rescue vessels and survivors in the sea - command needed to rely on troops to follow orders and it was a test
@fortawesome19748 ай бұрын
I'd love to see the name of one Infantryman or any corps from the US that fought on the Kokoda Track!! What a joke!! It was the Australians and only the Australians that fought that terrible battle!! WTF did the US have to do with it, I'd love to know why you included them?? For a channel called House of History you need to learn some more mate!! And I noticed your complete disregard to mention Australian Pilots that were involved and the fact all this came about from Australian Intelligence and the operation was planned and co-ordinated by Australians!! I also didn't see any mention of the dress rehearsal component of the raid, conducted at the insistence of Australian planners, which identified numerous issues with the complex operation and undoubtedly made a very important contribution to the overall success.
@HoH8 ай бұрын
Australians were mentioned over a dozen times, as other commenters pointed out.
@wisconsinfarmer47428 ай бұрын
US played a supply role in that one, through air support.
@fortawesome19748 ай бұрын
@@HoH I know, but you made it sound like the US was a major player in this ground war and they were not even there in that role!! As an ex Royal Australian Infantry Veteran I can't stand when the US tries to say they were a major part in a famous and bloody battle they had no part in on the ground or the planning!! You made it sound like we were just helping the US as a small part!! Absolutely disgusting to the memory of all those Australian Infantrymen!!
@gloverfox91356 ай бұрын
@@fortawesome1974you’re literally typing this comment on a website invented by Americans, on technology that was invented by Americans. That’s just what happens when a country has cultural domination. Why don’t Australians invent their ripoff of KZbin and sod off over there?
@icosthop99987 ай бұрын
TY 👍
@diannegooding87338 ай бұрын
I almost thought that I heard a role of Australian Pilots mentioned. Congratulations you are possibly beginning to recognise that other nations were in the war, without Tom Cruise! The allies would never have won the War without the Herculean efforts of US industrial might and the bravery and hard learned skills of its forces admittedly and we can never thank the American people enough. However, forces of other allied countries also fought valiantly alongside the Americans. A mention of those forces now and again, would not go amiss.
@rikk3198 ай бұрын
I've been studying WW2 history since the 1970s, with two grandfathers who served in the Pacific theater, and I've never once read a book that left allies of the US out of the combat operations there. Where are you getting information that doesn't include Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and UK forces?
@rbtsubs8 ай бұрын
Why do you think we love the Aussies so much... Every war since you've been there with us
@peregrinemccauley50108 ай бұрын
"The most decisive aerial battle of world war two". I better have the local 2nd hand book shop collect all my history books, or put this channel where it belongs.