The WW2 Plane with the Most Bizarre Killing Technique

Рет қаралды 436,870

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер

@marvwatkins7029 9 ай бұрын

I do rely on Dark and Felton amongst others to provide war stories no matter how obscure or minor of which I have never heard. I'm always learning something new about WWII and other military subjects from them.

@Jimmy_CV 9 ай бұрын

Dark is the worst source for historical accuracy

@matthewjay660 9 ай бұрын

Yeah, I trust Dr. Felton too. He educates me.

@johncox2865 9 ай бұрын

I RELY on Dr. Felton. Dark is an often comical amusement theater. Interesting photos, little more.

@VincentNajger1 9 ай бұрын

'The fat electrician' is also good at spinning military yarns. 'Drachinifel' is a must for maritime history. 'Australian Military Aviation History' does great air warfare docs. 'Waterline Stories' too, but that less military stuff. Same with 'Big Old Boats'. 'Military History Visualised', 'Military Aviation History' are fantastic. You can't go passed 'The Tank Museum' and 'The Australian Armour and Artillery Museum' for tank stuff. Plus there's 'The History Guy' and 'World War Two' (prob the best day by day recounting of the entire conflict, as well as series about the lead up and the aftermath). 'Real Time History', 'Oversimplified', 'War Stories', 'Yarnhub', 'Willy Cuz War Films', 'The Armchair Historian', 'Warographics' and 'World at War'(thats got a heap of great WW2 doc series). Lost Battlefields with Tino Struckmann and WW2 History Hunter and WW2 Metal Detecting for channels that actually visit the real obscure sites and do proper excavations. Of course, there's Time Team Official and Time Team Classics for that Tony Robinson ASMR guilty pleasure. That's my short list from over a decade crawling through the sordid, dank effluent infused sewer tunnels that is youtube lol. Hope that helps! Also, look up 'World at War' from the mid 70s. It used to be the real benchmark for tv WW2 doc series. It still excels today. It's on youtube on various channels. Its well worth searching up and watching in its entirety).

@VincentNajger1 9 ай бұрын

Wow.... My comment with a heap of ch suggestions disappeared. Imagine my shock lol. Lucky I know how to cut n paste. This channel is one of the most jealous channels. They wont even let you name another channel without nuking your comment from orbit within 2 mins lol. Ill try again. Here's a bunch of other history related channels that you can also enjoy. I wonder if itll last longer than 2 mins this time lol. The fat electrician' is also good at spinning military yarns. 'Drachinifel' is a must for maritime history. 'Australian Military Aviation History' does great air warfare docs. 'Waterline Stories' too, but that's less military stuff. Same with 'Big Old Boats'. 'Military History Visualised', 'Military Aviation History' are fantastic. You can't go passed 'The Tank Museum' and 'The Australian Armour and Artillery Museum' for tank stuff. Plus there's 'The History Guy' and 'World War Two' (prob the best day by day recounting of the entire conflict, as well as series about the lead up and the aftermath). 'Real Time History', 'Oversimplified', 'War Stories', 'Yarnhub', 'Willy Cuz War Films', 'The Armchair Historian', 'Warographics' and 'World at War'(thats got a heap of great WW2 doc series). Lost Battlefields with Tino Struckmann and WW2 History Hunter and WW2 Metal Detecting for channels that actually visit the real obscure sites and do proper excavations. Of course, there's Time Team Official and Time Team Classics for that Tony Robinson ASMR guilty pleasure. Also, look up 'World at War' from the mid 70s. It used to be the real benchmark for tv WW2 doc series. It still excels today. It's on youtube on various channels. Its well worth searching up and watching in its entirety).

@daveanderson3805 9 ай бұрын

The Roc could have been the world's best fighter. If only they had thought of it back in 1918

@chrismayer3919 4 ай бұрын

I admit, I never heard of the Roc…

@eddiebruv 9 ай бұрын

I’m highly sceptical of the claim that these aircraft carried out bombing missions in 1946. They were slow, but not THAT slow! 😂

@lancerevell5979 9 ай бұрын

1946? A year after war's end!? 😮

@TRHARTAmericanArtist 9 ай бұрын

I caught that too but figured Nah, I heard it wrong. 😆

@thewatcher5271 9 ай бұрын

Yeah, He's One Of Those A**holes Who Deliberately Does That To Increase The Comment Count.

@kevinohalloran7164 9 ай бұрын

@eddiebruv Yes, at approx 8:02 the voice says, "June 1946."

@steverichardson6920 9 ай бұрын

They left on the mission before the war in Europe finished but couldn’t be called back 🤷🏼 entirely plausible………….

@ronaldfinkelstein6335 9 ай бұрын

Does anyone else feel a bit uneasy, at the thought of two SEARCH AND RESCUE aircraft about to try to KILL each other, before they try to do their rescuing. I have read that the RAF considered German SAR aircraft fair game. But to my mind, it seems like shooting at medics!

@jamesricker3997 9 ай бұрын

The German crews had a habit of shooting British pilots. Aircraft were easier to replace than pilots

@lancerevell5979 9 ай бұрын

No honor. 😮

@sharzadgabbai4408 9 ай бұрын

Do share your service record

@vincedibona4687 9 ай бұрын

@sharzadgabbai4408 Nice.

@robertknight5429 9 ай бұрын

War is hell. In 1940 the German SAR were also spotting convoys etc.

@Eddewardeke 9 ай бұрын

It is a pity that so many of these documentaries have incorrect image material. For the rest they are interesting.

@VincentNajger1 9 ай бұрын

They put a disclaimer in the description. Often there isn't 10 minutes of footage available. I dunno why they don't just use stills and War Thunder like other channels do. It's an aesthetic and editing choice I assume.

@richardgrocutt522 9 ай бұрын

Footage of any kind is not easily available and trying to find footage of a certain aircraft is like trying to find a needle in a haystack thanks to all the people that go to great lengths to bring us these images ❤

@richardgrocutt522 9 ай бұрын

So that we never forget the sacrifices that all the allied soldiers made otherwise your first language might have been German ❤

@RussSharpe 9 ай бұрын

Contrary to your comments, the turreted fight was a horrible idea which was proven out in combat. The Defiant was no better than the Roc in combat with other fighters. Once the German’s figured out Defiants weren’t Hurricanes, the Defiants became easy pickings. This type of “fighter” aircraft is only viable as a night fighter where the pilot can maneuver his gunner into an excellent firing position beneath the enemy bomber.

@chrishowell5718 9 ай бұрын

I recall seeing on another channel that the main idea behind turret fighters was that it was very difficult to get guns firing directly forward of the aircraft to bear on a turning opponent: you effectively had to turn inside him. The ability to train turret-mounted guns on an enemy who was constantly 30 degrees above the pilot's gunsight was theorised to be an advantage. The weight and aerodynamic penalties meant it didn't work out that way, and later it became clear that boom and zoom was preferable to dogfighting anyhow. Still, I'm a little surprised that no one experimented with putting something like a 20mm canon in the rear fuselage to fire over the cockpit at a shallow angle (rather than schragemusick- style) , to fire inside the turn of a plane being pursued.

@lomax343 9 ай бұрын

The concept behind the turreted fighter was that they would be efficient at shooting down enemy bombers. And so they would've been, if the bombers obligingly flew straight and level, and didn't have any fighter escort.

@pickeljarsforhillary102 9 ай бұрын

Blackburn felt that streamlining was just a fade.

@sparky4878 9 ай бұрын

Such a silly fad. Where did Supermarine ever get with following it?

@jonathansteadman7935 9 ай бұрын

@@sparky4878Woolston.

@RICHARDSIMMONS.tRICKy 9 ай бұрын

The Blackburne Roc, the Boulton-Paul Defiant and other "upward firing" aircraft were a product of early thirties design, when engine power was quite limited, and interception times, to altitude, were quite abysmal. The bombers would be landing back at base by the time challengers could rise to confront (Zeppelin days?), so, we fire upwards! The Germans ended up using the same technique themselves, no turrets, before the party was over! Can't recall if the pilots here had access to guns also, if not, how frustrating, having to maneuver the aircraft for another to shoot with these turreted ones! tRICKy!

@philiphumphrey1548 9 ай бұрын

IIRC the upward firing cannons in a German night fighter were activated by the pilot using a clever optical device to aim.

@WarblesOnALot 9 ай бұрын

G'day, You got the Bristol Fighter & Hawker Hart & Demon backwards. The RFC tried to fly the Brisfit to use the Rear-Gunner offensively and they were shot to ribbons of bleeding burning mincemeat. So they started flying it as a fixed Forward-firing Fighter - with a Rear-Gunner to protect against attack from behind ; and the Bristol F-2b then BEGAN to be known as the Bristol Fighter.., because that worked. The Hart & Demon were Light Day Reconnaissance Bombers, with a Vickers K- Gun on a Scarff Mounting on the Observer/Gunner's Cockpit. The Blackburn Roc was a Royal Naval Fleet Air Arm copy of a Boulton & Paul Defiant... Much as a Fairey Fulmar was actually only a Fairey Battle with a retractable Tailhook retrofitted & bolted on ; under it's Bumfeathers... Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

@ronaldfinkelstein6335 9 ай бұрын

Turret fighters were rather useless in real combat. On o9ccasion they scored kills of fighters who didn't realize the turret was there. But once the German pilots recognized them, they'd approach from behind and BELOW, and shoot them down. Also, the turret fighters had very poor performance...most Luftwaffe bombers could run away from the Roc.

@Phaaschh 9 ай бұрын

Someone on a bicycle could probably do the same.

@derkylos 6 ай бұрын

The Defiants were moved away from the South of England precisely because of their vulnerability to single seat fighters. Fortuitously for them, this coincided with Norway-based Luftwaffe units conducting an unescorted raid on Northern England for which the Heinkels even removed the majority of their defensive guns, as they were expecting to encounter no RAF fighters, thinking they were all tied up in the South. Encountering mostly unarmed, unescorted bombers, the Defiants scored a record number of kills in that single raid...their only real moment of glory in the entire war.

@damienmaynard8892 9 ай бұрын

The Roc looked like the Boulton-Paul Defiant had a hot night with a Blackburn Skua. Still, they all played their part and had successes. Sleeve-valve engines were very quiet compared to other types - radial and in-line. Least likely dogfight? What about the Wellesley versus Caproni's in the Med.!?

@eddiebruv 9 ай бұрын

How many incorrect aircraft types can YOU see in this video? 😂

@stuarthannay3370 9 ай бұрын

I spotted a Pterodactyl, a Tie fighter, Icarus, Superman and Airwolf amongst the footage

@HorsleyLandy88 9 ай бұрын

I thought it was a competition, spot the wrong aeroplane :)

@ninjalanternshark1508 9 ай бұрын

Video editing and proofreading is not one of Dark Skies strengths

@pete1250a 9 ай бұрын

Hurricane, Defiant, Vulcan, wheelbarrow, no.122 bus to Lewisham, ham sandwich, Marilyn Monroe...

@frostyfrost4094 9 ай бұрын

Well after seeing the Mustang I gave up

@coryfogle5353 9 ай бұрын

There really wasn't much of a choice. At 200mph, it takes about 50 seconds to go 3 miles. So first you have to assume the other plane has seen you also, and then you get into mission priority. Unfortunately a downed pilot, who if you're lucky enough to find...may...be alive, comes in second to an enemy plane that IS definitely capable of shooting you and others down. That's the reality of war.

@chuckoneill2023 9 ай бұрын

The most bizarre killing technique were the purpose-built Japanese Bohka Bombs. Manned cruise missles (except, of course, the term cruise missle hadn't yet been coined). Only one confirmed kill in the whole war.

@JonCarter-i3k 9 ай бұрын

The Limeys knew how to sometimes make unbelievably hideous looking aircraft.

@patrickporter1864 9 ай бұрын

You should see some of the French ones.

@GeoffTV2 9 ай бұрын

After the war, those same guys worked in our car manufacturing industry.

@gryph01 9 ай бұрын

😂😂😂

@JonCarter-i3k 9 ай бұрын

@@patrickporter1864 ... if they were as hideous as FROG 🐸 cars from the '50s ... they must have been fugly as a dog turd.

@PaulG.x 9 ай бұрын

They make hideous cars too - the D Type Jaguar for example

@paulqueripel3493 9 ай бұрын

5:07, Blackburn were designing the Roc in the west midlands? Really? They didn't have anything in the area. According to Wikipedia, Bolton Paul designed it for them, in Wolverhampton.

@EllieMaes-Grandad 9 ай бұрын

Blackburn were at Brough, near Hull.

@proteusnz99 9 ай бұрын

If the Roc ever killed anything I’d have thought it would have needed a mid-collision. Slow and underpowered, there was even a version on floats, which would have had trouble getting out of its own way. The turret fighter concept was trying to refight the previous war. Interestingly, despite Air Ministry advancing the No-allowance shooting concept, they rejected the evidence that the Luftwaffe was shooting from beneath RAF bombers (‘Schräge Musik’, [slanting music, slang for jazz], two cannon pointing up at about 80 degrees ) which achieved the same thing without the unnecessary weight of a traversing turret.

@dionisiohug 9 ай бұрын

Total crap like many of the planes this company made. My father was a royal navy pilot and nobody wanted to fly it. Its was a flying coffin

@PaulG.x 9 ай бұрын

This is where the famous saying: "It flies like a rock" originates

@Codsallkendo 9 ай бұрын

These were built at Boulton Paul Aircraft in Wolverhampton as they also built the Defiant.

@johncox2865 9 ай бұрын

2:44 Do I understand you to say that you’ve never hunted quail or dove in your life? Have you never fired a gun? Unless your moving target is either moving directly toward or away from you, aiming DIRECTLY at it will always result in a miss. All other shooting at moving targets IS deflection shooting.

@maxsparks5183 9 ай бұрын

I would be much more impressed if the Allied pilot chose to let the German aircraft continue its mission to save its downed flyers, while the Allied pilot did the same.

@nightjarflying 9 ай бұрын

Other way around - the German seaplane first attacked the Roc

@dovetonsturdee7033 9 ай бұрын

You mean the mission to recover downed aircrew and return them to their units?

@richardhart9204 9 ай бұрын

... and the chap they were supposed to rescue?

@MrJest2 9 ай бұрын

Who knows; if he was lucky another aircraft helped out. The terrible part of this story was... these SAR missions didn't _need_ to engage. They were both rescue aircraft, and the equivalent of hospital ships - they weren't supposed to be fired upon. But (supposedly) Nazi fanaticism led one of the gunners on the Heinkel to open up on Roc, and at that point all bets were off. An engagement of obsolete aircraft, to little effect overall... except, of course, for the poor chap they were sent out to find.

@boanerges5723 9 ай бұрын

There were numerous floating "hotels" designed for downed airmen, but you'd need to be lucky to be downed close enough to swim to one. Depending on the area of sea around Britain there is a low survival rate with extended submersion in the water of as little as 45 mins. In much of the north hypothermia is expected to set in within 30mins.

@richardhart9204 9 ай бұрын

@@boanerges5723 Those Hotels were few and far between and little better than being stranded in the drink.

@NotABot_BOT_ 9 ай бұрын

@@MrJest2if an enemy plane pursued you with guns trained on you, you bet you would open fire aswell. It's historical gaslighting to say it was Nazi fanatisim when most people in the wermacht and luftwaffe were not members the the nazy party.

@MrJest2 9 ай бұрын

@@NotABot_BOT_ Hence the "supposedly". We only have the aircrew's story to go on; for all we know the Brits opened fire first. Even history in living memory tends to be "fuzzy". War is a special kind of crazy Hell, and as long observed, the truth is the first causality.

@Mrch33ky 9 ай бұрын

Thanks for this Airplane History Tabloid Channel.

@marvwatkins7029 9 ай бұрын

@ 8:08: June 1946??? A little late the party, chum? (Tip: always review and edit before posting.)

@Jimmy_CV 9 ай бұрын

I am almost sure dark does zero research or post editing

@mre7862 9 ай бұрын

The French being bombed by the RAF in 1946 shaking their fists to the air and screaming “what le fuq?!” 😂

@gingercat6128 9 ай бұрын

The video mentions a Swordfish seaplane. The Swordfish was a carrier based biplane torpedo bomber, not a seaplane. Perhaps the narrator meant a Supermarine Walrus, a biplane flying boat used by the RAF for air-sea rescue.

@michaelmclachlan1650 9 ай бұрын

The Swordfish were also built as seaplanes, equipped with twin floats. The second prototype was refitted with these as part of its development program and the final pre-production aircraft was completed with them. A number were used, with floats, on battleships and battlecruisers as reconnaissance aircraft: HMS Repulse, HMS Renown, HMS Warspite etc. The Wikipedia has more detail and includes a photograph of a floatplane on HMS Malaya.

@dovetonsturdee7033 9 ай бұрын

Wrong. A number of Swordfish were equipped with floats in order to operate as catapult aircraft. One from HMS Warspite sank a U-Boat during the Battle of Narvik.

@marvwatkins7029 9 ай бұрын

Whatever works with whatever you got.

@richmorg8196 9 ай бұрын

Like the Bouton Paul Defient that was mistaken for a Hurricane

@markymark3572 9 ай бұрын

The 196 mph fighter😂😂

@mylezzpurhourr 9 ай бұрын

Definitely gives me Paul Boulton defiant vibes lol

@andrewcomerford9411 9 ай бұрын

It used the same turret, not a Fraser-Nash.

@missasinenomine 9 ай бұрын

Boulton Paul?

@ianwilkinson3425 9 ай бұрын

@@missasinenomineMichael Bolton ?

@mrburns444 9 ай бұрын

@@missasinenomine Boulton Paul Defiant, I think.

@jameskelly2559 9 ай бұрын

Roc/Defiant..the misidentified 'Swordfish'. I know there is not a lot of footage of the Roc, but at least mention you are using footage of other planes. Otherwise, a good documentary, well done.

@traviswebb5094 9 ай бұрын

1946? You know something we don't?

@TomPrickVixen 9 ай бұрын

In other words; it failed to kill a relic biplane bomber, on several minutes of broadside....

@chriswalford4161 9 ай бұрын

Blackburn is in Lancashire, not Yorkshire.

@bassetdad437 4 ай бұрын

It was called the Blackburn Company because Robert Blackburn owned it not because it was in Blackburn.

@lonwof2105 9 ай бұрын

How come they never made a float plane with retractable floats? Seems like you could build the fusalage to contain the floats and build them more aerodynamically so they could maybe hang out a bit. It would improve performance tremendously.

@auldteuchter9012 9 ай бұрын

There have been a couple, none to sucessful production. But Blackburn was one of them, had to wait for the Buccaneer before they finally made a decent bit of kit.

@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus 9 ай бұрын

You would still have to apply lead when shooting from a turret at a moving target, so deflection shooting. The gun convergence distance would be less critical than wing mounted guns.

@iantobanter9546 9 ай бұрын

Brilliant! Thanks for posting.

@ericthemauve 9 ай бұрын

Tongue in cheek, I hope.

@freedog632 9 ай бұрын

You would still have to lead the targets, putting guns in a turret doesn't speed the bullets up to the speed of light.

@paktahn 9 ай бұрын

exactly who ever wrote the script for this vid knows nothing about guns ballistics or physics if anything shooting from a turret is harder because you have to take not of the direction you are shooting opposed to your direction of travel

@patrickporter1864 9 ай бұрын

The dive bomber version the skua was faster than the fighter version the roc.

@mauricio-wq5lu 9 ай бұрын

Designation shooting is still needed, even for current lasers.

@MrOlgrumpy 9 ай бұрын

Deflection is the word you are seeking

@eriku571 9 ай бұрын

How do bullets float?

@lancerevell5979 9 ай бұрын

😂

@gryph01 9 ай бұрын

Blackburn. The Chrysler of aircraft

@ChrisSmith-lo2kp 9 ай бұрын

would've been great as a proto gunship, using its quad mount turret in a pylon turn to destroy ground targets

@chrisomalley50 9 ай бұрын

A bit pedantic, I know, but these things are important: 1. NOT a Hinkel, but a Heinkel. 2. Part of your footage is also NOT a ROC but a Lysander. Pay attention!

@honda412000 9 ай бұрын

Heard o Schraeder Music? The sound made by the two 20 mm cannons placed vertically on top of the 110 night fighters already equipped with (poor) radars? Something Lancaster crews hated to hear.

@nightjarflying 9 ай бұрын

Schräge Musik [or Schrägwaffen] wasn't named for the sound, it's a reference to Nazi maligned jazz & the unnatural angle of the weapons, it didn't just use 20 mm cannon, it didn't just use the Bf 110 & it wasn't placed vertically - normally it was angled forwards somewhat.

@JonCarter-i3k 9 ай бұрын

So, basically the ROC was almost obsolete at it's very beginning !!

@patrickporter1864 9 ай бұрын

Typically british. No feelings for the pilots.

@hd-xc2lz 9 ай бұрын

6:14 interesting '40s grooming choice, forerunner of the Mohawk?

@KABModels 9 ай бұрын

turrett fighters wouldnt have been the shit show they were had they have had forward firing guns

@johnfisk811 9 ай бұрын

With a suitable sight the turret guns, aimed above the propellor and firing forwards could act as fixed forward firing guns by use of the no deflection technique whereby the sight allows for the fall of the shot as it flies towards the target. It was a successfully trialled technique by the RAF but never put to use despite the Defiant, at least, having a setting to fix the turret thus and the pilot provided with a gun firing option. The turret fighter was based upon the assumption that German bombers would have to fly from German bases and their fighters did not have the range to escort them. The turret allowed for extended firing times at the target, not the fleeting pass of fixed forward firing guns. It made sense at the time. No one expected France to fall. The reason for putting it on a Skua airframe to make the Roc and not Defiant was down to speed of entry into service and commonality with the strike Skuas on board ship. Essentially the same airframe and power plant so easing spares and maintenance. The Roc was a useful dive bomber though and active over France alongside the Swordfish, Albacores, Skuas and Hectors. The part played in the defence of Dunkirk by British dive bombers is rarely mentioned just as the the tactical bombing by Lysanders is hardly heard of. Even the Roc carried the same bomb load as the later ‘Hurribomber’ and could place them more accurately. Still an abysmally slow device nevertheless.

@jonathansteadman7935 9 ай бұрын

It's pronounced 'skewer' named after the Skua sea bird, as was the Roc.

@philipbahr7410 9 ай бұрын

Never heard the bird pronounced that way😂

@EllieMaes-Grandad 9 ай бұрын

You have now. @@philipbahr7410

@kimvibk9242 9 ай бұрын

Also, the German plane was a Heinkel (think of Heineken), not a Hinkel.

@EllieMaes-Grandad 9 ай бұрын

You have now. @@philipbahr7410

@532bluepeter 9 ай бұрын

Allies? I'm afraid the Doughboy was still not participating.

@nightjarflying 9 ай бұрын

There were other allies involved in September 1940.

@532bluepeter 9 ай бұрын

@@nightjarflying the commonwealth troop contributions?

@georgecoventry8441 9 ай бұрын

Strange encounter, yes....but not as strange as the time a Dachshund in Oldenburg, Germany attempted to bring down a fully grown elk! That also ended in a draw.

@goranschmidt3543 18 күн бұрын

Henkel.... 😁 Henkel Trocken ?! 😂😂😂

@LordEvan5 9 ай бұрын

I've always loved turret fighters always reminds of some plane from Tailspin chasing around the SeaDuck

@zaxxx1975 9 ай бұрын

This site has let me down. Dark etc was real good stuff then they seem to have run a ground in the name dept. Click bait names. Most hated airplane. Most terrifying gun...etc etc. Most lame names contest you win. Dont dumb down your history.

@chrisjensen9313 9 ай бұрын

And ESSENTIALLY zero research, pulling derp out of their arse and spreading pure nonsense instead of doin the slightest research..

@alexstephens3765 6 ай бұрын

Until Hurricaines took off from and landed on an aircraft carrier, the prevailing thought was that high performance aircraft could operate at sea.

@3746463 9 ай бұрын

9:38 It is 7,92 not 7.99

@karoltakisobie6638 9 ай бұрын

Imho Roc wasn't a bad plane. It was product of faulty expectation and requirement for " universal combat plane". In effect it wasn't best at any task , it was barely acceptable at the moment.

@michaeljerauld9757 9 ай бұрын

I LOVE Dark skies!

@TorquilBletchleySmythe 5 ай бұрын

The Roc didn't have a killing technique, unless it was its ability to ferry its hapless occupants to harm's way.

@wabiforth6755 9 ай бұрын

Ot is my feeling that you need to re-edit the clip as the order is a bit strange.

@WilmerCook 9 ай бұрын

Aerodynamic windshield!

@alexhayden2303 9 ай бұрын

Poor old Detling is now a housing estate/industrial estate. A sad end. I had a close encounter with the only Lysander that I have ever seen!

@midnightbluevt 9 ай бұрын

This is like watching the Amazon guy and the FedEx bro shoot at each other on the freeway or something.

@billdurham8477 9 ай бұрын

Y'all need to read Chris Chant and Bill Gunstan, not Wiki. The "logical principles" behind the Roc were on par with the junk science that says if you had a sensitive enough microphone you can still pick up Lincolns Gettysburg Address echo's. Stick 1000 lbs of turret and gunner in an already underpowered plane. This was about the only Roc kill of the war. Some context is needed. There was a doctrine in vogue in Europe in 30's of the Jagflueger Fighter Destroyer aircraft. A nice idea, best embodied in the Beaufighter.4 cannons. Make an airplane that can toss enough lead to kill anything in it's sights. Including the gunship B17. It just didn't work as a single engine fighter was always nimble enough to to shoot JF out of the sky. The concept did work in the end as nightfighters.

@stl3414 7 ай бұрын

This would be a far different story If someone waggled their wings to signal no ill intent and point to the waters so both can go rescue their own men from drowning.

@starpilot101 9 ай бұрын

Okay but like why only a turret and no forward guns? Couldn't they fit 2 - 4 .303 machine guns anywhere in the wings or nose? How did nobody invent a P-61 like turret/schrage musik interceptor earlier.

@0Turbox 9 ай бұрын

The Germans should have done this against the bomber formations instead of the "schräge musik". A 20 mm quad ball turret on a JU-88 and the fighters only care for the escorts.

@Frankie5Angels150 9 ай бұрын

Brits: Let’s call it a Rock and then expect it to fly! The rest of the world: 🦗 🦗

@patrickporter1864 9 ай бұрын

Arabian nights, folks. Sinbad the sailor stories ring any bells. Roc was a monster eagle.

@RemusKingOfRome 9 ай бұрын

Why didn't the Navy just use Defiants ? modified for carrier use ? far sleeker, far faster. Roc was just so archaic.

@gryph01 9 ай бұрын

Dark skies. Why do you keep showing a Lysander?

@ericthemauve 9 ай бұрын

Because he knows sweet fa about his subject matter.

@jorggruhl709 Ай бұрын

Hat die KI beim Einsprechen des Off-Textes schon zu tief ins Glas geschaut. Das ist grausam, das kann ich mir nicht anhören.

@DAVIDSMITH-xs8bx 7 ай бұрын

Bits of Lockheed Hudson turret, Westland Lysanders, Fairey Fulmar & Hurricane cockpits, historical footage needs to be accurate.

@fletchermunson6225 9 ай бұрын

So what happened to the pilot in the water?

@gerrycoogan6544 9 ай бұрын

He's still awaiting rescue. He was last seen near the Azores a couple of years ago.

@robertblake9892 7 ай бұрын

Like so many. things, sounded great in theory, let the pilot fly the plane, let the gunner so the shooting. IIRC both the Defiant and the Roc were underpowered and not as maneuverable. The Germans came up with "Schrage Musik"-"Jazz Music" for their night fighters-Me110, e.g. Guns were angled so the pilot could approach a bomber from below.

@daniellabra4186 9 ай бұрын

You surely know how to tell a tale...

@auro1986 9 ай бұрын

did turret rotate from aircraft's engine?

@michaelmclachlan1650 9 ай бұрын

Hydraulically powered by an electrically-driven pump.

@lomax343 9 ай бұрын

Yes. The gunner could only enter or exit it the turret was pointed the right way. If the engine failed, or the aircraft was shot down, the gunner was often trapped in the turret. The affected the Defiant as well. Small wonder such aircraft were unpopular with their crews.

@pete1250a 9 ай бұрын

Hinkle?

@MrOlgrumpy 9 ай бұрын

Herr Hinkle,ask Charlie Chaplin

@herauthon 7 ай бұрын

so a SAR is going to fight a SAR - effectively not being able to rescue people..

@SatiriCus-Doc-GermaniCus 8 ай бұрын

German text? WOW! But: metric units of measurement, at least as a text overlay would be great!

@localcrew 9 ай бұрын

I can smell what the Rock is cooking.

@SchaluppenDiddi 8 ай бұрын

Ich liebe KI. Es strotzt nur so von idiotischen Fakten. Schade um die richtigen Aussagen dieses Flugzeuges.

@lowandslow3939 9 ай бұрын

So the pilot chose to chase a fleeing enemy aircraft rather than continue his mission to save a downed pilot. Sounds rather selfish.

@lancerevell5979 9 ай бұрын

And the idea of attacking a plane trying to find and rescue survivors, even if an enemy. No honor. 🤨

@sharzadgabbai4408 9 ай бұрын

USCG ret Have you ever been on a a search and rescue mission? It Isnt easy. They had searched, and were losing light. An enemy aircraft cane on scene. Said aircraft equally capable of attacking them.

@terrisommella720 9 ай бұрын

Sounds like a courts martial offence to me.

@simon-oy6um 9 ай бұрын

War is strange 😮

@davemcmahon8140 9 ай бұрын

Stinks if you ask me! The search and rescue aircraft like ambulance trains should not be on any kill list. Doesn't matter who German, British, Russian, American.

@44hawk28 9 ай бұрын

The guns don't get more accurate when you turn it to the side. The gunner is just better at leading the target

@exxbootneck 9 ай бұрын

Hahaha but don't all gangstas turn their guns on their sides?

@kevincurtis7917 9 ай бұрын

The story is the thing. The illustrations are drawn from the limited stock of eighty year old battle and promotional film footage. They are good enough.

@ericthemauve 9 ай бұрын

No, they most definitely are NOT!

@jackywhite880 9 ай бұрын

It isn't emphasised enough in current day accounts of the Battle of Britain that so many pilots weren't equipped with Spitfires or Hurricanes. They threw EVERYTHING up there - no reserves. 70 years ago, at the age of 10, I made a scratch balsa model of the Roc, using the "Spotters Book of Aircraft" and a home-made scale rule. Loved the look,of that aircraft. And the Skua. And, of course, the Stringbag. And...

@gendaminoru3195 9 ай бұрын

I wonder what you would say if a German fighter shot down a British search and rescue attempt.

@nightjarflying 9 ай бұрын

The Heinkel He 59 seaplane fired on the Blackburn Roc first.

@ba9atman 9 ай бұрын

Jeez! I thought this channel couldn't get any worse, but this melange of inaccurate information and incorrect images really plumbs the depths.

@daryllloyd4144 9 ай бұрын

As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.