The Flaming Coffin - Heinkel He 177 Greif

The Heinkel He 177 heavy bomber was doomed from the very start.
Conceptual problems and incompatible design elements gave it a terrible reputation. It was often named the "Luftwaffenfeuerzeug XX," or "The Air Force Lighter," for its constant engine fires.
It was also nicknamed the "The Flaming Coffin," the "One Way Bomber," and the "Volcano" for the many accidents pilots had while flying it. During World War II, it only saw limited service with the Luftwaffe.
Most of the crashes the He 177 suffered were caused by mechanical failures, not by enemy fire. Hitler despised it. Göring despised it. But some Luftwaffe pilots still pushed the project in hopes of deploying it as the dive bomber.
The He 177 was Germany's only long-range heavy bomber produced in appreciable numbers. The 35-ton plane, however, would contribute to the German defeat by sucking up valuable resources into an ineffective and compromised project.
Historians even say that all the effort spent trying to fix the aircraft may have doomed the Third Reich to lose the war in the air because of the enormous resources the project required.
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
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.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.

[@Zoydian]

I think the problem of the He 177 was that it was TOO GOOD of a dive bomber; it flew into the ground with great precision.

[@johnnaugle5762]

Best comment ever.

[@Tucker1Nonly]

Lol

[@RemusKingOfRome]

They actually developed a large suicide glide bomb. Japanese were so jealous.

[@bbt305]

Well put. What would Hitler say about your brutal honesty?

[@thecoopinater]

Kamikaze time

[@pyromaniacal13]

If I had known I was going to be air crew on a bird nicknamed "The One Way Bomber" I would give serious thought into defecting.

[@Gaaaaaame]

@@creamwobbly XD

[@quarreneverett4767]

hms unsinkable mk 2

[@dx1450]

Or "the flying coffin"

[@IndependentBear]

For a long time the B-17 crews of the 8th Air Force conducting daylight raids from England to Europe knew they stood no chance of surviving 25 missions so they could rotate, but they flew anyway.

[@Bartonovich52]

A guy I knew was based in West Germany on a strike fighter and he knew that in WWIII happened he would be on a one way trip.

[@brianartillery]

Glad you mentioned Eric 'Winkle' Brown - he was a fascinating character, who, during his lifetime, flew more different aircraft than anyone before, or since. Virtually every British, American, German, Japanese, Italian, Russian or French aircraft used in WW2, including being the only non-German pilot to fly a rocket engined Me-163 'Komet'. These were flown by allied pilots as gliders, after the war - but Eric Brown wanted the full experience. He had two German assistants, who knew where there were complete 163's, and their lethal fuel hidden. They took Brown to them, but begged him not to fly one using the rocket. He, on the other hand, begged them, being ex Luftwaffe groundcrew, to ready a 163 for him, and told them that they would be blameless if things went wrong. And despite the protests of the Germans, they readied a 163 for him, which he flew and landed successfully, much to his and their relief.

[@m.aguirre6640]

That’s a perfect history to Dr. Mark Felton’s youtube channel!

[@tricosteryl]

The author of "the bible" of german WWII aircrafts... Nice book I strongly recommend this masterpiece ! Lots of cutaway drawings, photos, and highly valuable text regarding the aircrafts and their handling.

[@davidthompson5710]

He and Paul Poberenzy are very close in this regard. Paul might have him beat. Paul had to fly everything he could get into.

[@jameshoye7058]

@@tricosteryl K{, _😊

[@31Toyru]

Eric Brown only flew gliding test flights in the Me 163A and Me 163B after being pulled aloft by a tow aircraft. He never flew the aircraft under its own power. He states this very clearly in his book "Wings of the Luftwaffe" published in 1977 . See page 176, second paragraph.

[@jamesmcguire5312]

You may find this interesting. My father flew P-40s and P-47’s doing ground attack in the China Burma India theater in World War II. I asked him how he managed to aim the bombs without a bomb site when he dropped them. He had a very simple formula he would start a shallow dive on the target lining it up making sure the airplane did not slip or skid. When he got to target on his nose he pulled up and counted 1001 1002 and released the bomb. I tried it at low level and small airplanes with a little flour bag. It worked great. Somehow the speed and dive angle worked to make an accurate hit. The thunderbolt could not dive at a very steep angle because it would hit what is known as compressibility and make the airplane uncontrollable.

[@janmale7767]

All aircraft had compressibility issues,it just varied depending on the differing airframes,weight etc etc.

[@paullangford8179]

@@janmale7767 A great many aircraft couldn't go fast enough to get compressibility issues. The ones that did usually were very fast in level flight, and had high wing loadings (therefore low drag).

[@George_M_]

When even Goering thinks it's a bad idea...

[@The_Mimewar]

Right? That says a LOT. “Ja? Ja? It crashes? Und comes apart? Maybe ve skip this one, eh?”

[@dancooper4733]

Goering had a 128 IQ, iirc.

[@guaporeturns9472]

@@dancooper4733 IQ tests are of questionable value. My IQ was scored at 142 but I’ve had 3 duii’s and three ex-wives. I guess problem solving and decision making are two different types of intelligence.😂 Or I just have really bad taste in women and am an alcoholic.🤣

[@blackwolf2447]

@@dancooper4733 how are u still alive DB. Cooper?

[@dancooper4733]

@Ignacio Muñoz Diaz Still smarter than you.

[@SirStixxy]

"...sucking up valuable resources..." just as Goring's width is shown. LOL

[@adamfrazer5150]

Right ?! Can't help but find it comical whenever that corpulent blob enters any frame......dressed in his homemade uniforms too, you've got to laugh 😬

[@voraciousreader3341]

The first time I saw film footage of Göring, decades ago now, I immediately thought of Baby Huey, the Looney Tunes character: 4.bp.blogspot.com/_ByfZrLhEldc/TMYzhcuG_aI/AAAAAAAABPA/YwFHPA-Yff8/s1600/Baby+Huey.jpg Of course, people have often mistaken his huge girth and ridiculous uniforms as evidence of a low IQ, which was very far from the truth. Still, his neuroses and psychopathy have given me hours of amusement over the years!

[@adamfrazer5150]

@@voraciousreader3341 😉 hahaha brilliant, well put man, agreed 👍👍

[@herpmcderp7666]

He once tried to sit in a 109's cockpit as he visited an airfield where some pilots were about to fly across the english channel, and was so wide he couldn't even fit in the tiny plane

[@typxxilps]

check your own societies for fat guys and then you face a society beyond peek for sure - especially in the US and its military. Göring shot fare more allied planes down than any average allied fighter "ass".

[@SvenTviking]

The amazing thing is that if you look at the Avro Manchester/Lancaster, it’s a similar story with completely different ending. The Manchester was a twin engined bomber, fitted with two Rolls Royce “Vulture” engines which were two Kestrel V12 top ends, fitted to a common crankcase to form an “X24”. It should have been very powerful, but it was underpowered and rather unreliable, causing aborted missions, unavailable aircraft and of course crashes. The RAF, Avro and Rolls Royce soldiered on with it for a few months, but soon realised it was a dead duck. So quickly, Avro designer Roy Chadwick put in an extra wing section with four Rolls Royce Merlin XX engines in the “Power egg” unit first fitted to the Bristol Beaufighter. And so the Lancaster was born. Heinkel could easily have done the same with DB603, Junkers Jumo 211 or BMW 801 engines and got a very good heavy bomber.

[@tomsmith3045]

That's a great story, hadn't heard it before. So they started with a better engine, tried to double it, then learned that was a bad plan so they switched to four props. British engineering really is under-rated. We Americans built some great planes, but the British did a lot more than just build the Merlin and Spitfire.

[@tomsmith3045]

@@apis_aculei It makes sense that they couldn't do it. Because the force from one engine necessarily has to be coupled through the other. And that necessarily adds extra load, and weird vibrations, to the middle motor. A properly designed aircraft engine isn't going to be designed to carry extra loads, or vibrations, because they aren't grossly overbuilt. So in short, trying to glue together two good engines is a hack that shouldn't work, unless those engines were designed for it in the first place. V12's and V16's are already pretty long anyway.

[@hibob418]

And the Germans did try to do exactly that - fit the He177 with 4 engines, as in the He277 variant. Bur depending on the story - and there are several, one being that Heinkel did that in secret after Goering forbade them from spending more resources on the 4-engine type. But the He277 was one of the entries into being the Luftwaffe's Amerikabomber project.

[@anzaca1]

The first hundred or so Lancasters were literally built using unfinished Manchester fuselages. These early Lancasters can be identified by the row of small windows down each side.

[@VonMinzeIII]

I have read a few books on the history development and service (mis)use of the Heinkel 177 as this aircraft which I’ve also say thot to be a ugly duckling which could have been a swan MAny German projects where plagued by incompetence burocracy and competition between manufacturers An interesting thing I read in one of the books dealing with this bird even speculated that the continuous dogged perseverance in producing this Ill fated aircraft actually brought the end of the luftwaffe sooner as it took away vasts amount of material labour and man hours to produce which could have been used on other more needed models All in all I think the strategy of using the luftwaffe at big G (goering) s whim was bad enough already as fliying artillery for the army Not to mention the lack of a strategical bombing ideology (with the death of general Wever that was put in the shredder) Hampered Germany when it needed to deliver the fatal punch or blow on its enemies Britain and Russia being the notable examples All in all if the design would have been thot thoroughly as a proper Long distance bomber without the ridicolous dive bomber requirement Germany would have had one of the finest bombers of the war

[@coryfice1881]

Lets make a heavy bomber into a dive bomber.

[@lunaokittens9574]

And give it bad engines!!! 🤦‍♂️💀🤦‍♂️

[@major_kukri2430]

@@lunaokittens9574 The engines themselves weren't bad, they just didn't have sufficient cooling. Either way, they should have just dropped the project.

[@m.i1343]

It's easy for you to criticize the engineers without knowing a thing about engineering ! Those guys were paving the way , they didn't have anything as a reference. Yes they made bad choices. but the choice of a heavy bomber being able to strike accurately, with one way or the other was too good to pass

[@coryfice1881]

@@m.i1343 Now that's some salt. poor nazis 😥

[@major_kukri2430]

@@m.i1343 they needed a bombsight, not a stuka the size of a b17.

[@Chuckles..]

The designer of the He 177: "it's not a dive bomber and can't be used for dive bombing" The Luftwaffe: "that sounds good, we'll use it as a dive bomber" 🤦‍♂️

[@F40PH-2CAT]

They did the same thing with the Do217

[@trekkienzl2862]

13:05 "Over-investing resources in a bad design could ruin an entire air force" F-35: **Sweats nervously**

[@alwayscensored6871]

They should just declass the tictacs.

[@owen368]

Think the F-35 will be a plane that just fades from the view after a few years as all the issues and costs place it further and further back into the hanger.

[@carbonara2144]

@@owen368 Some say it would finally start to work. Knowing that many faults have only been fixed on paper I have my doubts. It has been on developer hell for too long. It is more like a political project that is too big to fail.

[@owen368]

@@carbonara2144 That what I think, it is in "service" and the fuss will die down and then air forces will buy other aircraft to assist it, that does a better job, costs less to buy/run but isn't trying to do 3 or 4 different things all at the same time.

[@carbonara2144]

@@owen368 Agree. Too bad. Looks good on paper but is very expensive to maintain. Plane has had strange problems that are just too many to cover here. USA already has new development programs coming.

[@withapulse2000]

Remarkable... 1500 made....for yrs I have watched what I thought was every documentary and clip of ww2 made...but this the first time I have become aware that this flawed creation ever existed! ...you do indeed learn something new everyday ...thanks you tube!...and the maker of this mini documentary!....fascinating stuff.

[@Bartonovich52]

1500 wasn’t a lot in those days. Remember, they made over 18,000 Liberators. But sure is a lot more than 20 B-2s.

[@lukycharms9970]

Hahaha I know EXACTLY what you mean

[@tricosteryl]

Production is 1169 aircrafts. He177 was good as preventing allied raider ships attacking coastal traffic in south west France. In this task it was acceptable.

[@kirgan1000]

@@tricosteryl and after a long troublesome development, the Germans did managed to make the engines reliable.

[@gregculverwell]

I have Ernest Heinkel 's book He 1000. He was no lover of it, but was forced to continue its development. He was adamant that it could never be any kind of dive bomber. However Ernst Udet insisted and Heinkel but was unable to dissuade Udet, mainly due to the fact that they couldn't stand each other.

[@Hiznogood]

Perfect plane for the Elbonian Airforce!

[@disbeafakename167]

A man of culture I see.

[@gunterg7309]

Would it’s fighters be bf109s with the jumo j211 like the Israelis had

[@Timo-wv3dd]

Soft crashes in the mud?? :)

[@alexrennison8070]

What is Elbonia? I keep seeing references to it, what is it?

[@beverlychmelik5504]

@@baronvonslambert Nope, Burton-Paul Defiant or Brewster Buffalo.

[@scootergeorge9576]

"Greif" is German for Griffon but the plane brought the Luftwaffe plenty of Grief!

[@Christian-os3sh]

And today the Swedish Gripen, Swedish for "The Griffon" is One of the world leading multi-purpose jet fighters

[@Vickzq]

He177 shot down a P61 on a night mission... was still a tough bird.

[@scootergeorge9576]

@@Vickzq - If what you say is true, the Luftwaffe gunner got of a lucky shot. The aircraft was in development for a very long time. At least in part because Urnst Udet insisted it be capable of operating as a dive bomber. And the Db 606 engines were a bad idea as well, tending to overheat and burst into flames. The He 277, with four separate engines was not begun toll 1943, when there was no longer a need for a long range strategic bomber.

[@Vickzq]

@@scootergeorge9576 Of course it is true. And when we leave that part aside... record of P61 over europe was horrible. Too slow compared to average nightfighters, and operating over grounds with radar coverage... totally different compared to pacific.

[@scootergeorge9576]

@@Vickzq - P-61A record over Europe wasn't much in limited use and suffered a critical shortage of spare parts. But Luftwaffe aircraft such as the Me 410 were faster. The P-61C had improved performance but arrived too late.

[@fancyultrafresh3264]

"Fast diving heavy bomber"....

[@joeyr7294]

🔥💀☠️

[@travisgartside409]

Used to love using this as a dive bomber on the war birds Russian free host! Haha. A rain of 48x100kg bombs!

[@kapikoyli]

Fast dying Heavy bomber.

[@irishlad2496]

@@kapikoyli 😆

[@kentlindal5422]

Diving yes, pulling up...

[@parrotraiser6541]

"Over-investing in a bad design can ruin an entire air force" should probably be painted on every door in the Pentagon. And it's not just airforces; what did the Sergeant York consume?

[@tomsmith3045]

Agree... It could be further refined - "trying to design an airplane to do two different things is likely to result in it unable to do either, and at best one". And yeah, not just the Air Force.

[@dhardy6654]

Follow that logic out further to weaponize it. Say make a software that integrated design and manufacturing so that portions could be outsourced to other countries and it destroyed their indigenous areospace production. Then make the aircraft so expensive that they will trade 6 of their each existing aircraft for just one.... Then costs balloon and now it's 12 for 1. Then make the aircraft suck. That's the F-35 Program boys.... Don't trade in your F-18s, F-16, F-15s, F-4s, A-10s, B-1s, B-52s and all your tankers and AWACs.

[@parrotraiser6541]

@@dhardy6654 And as Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality all its own". Swarms of cheap junk may be able to overwhelm single masterpieces; e.g. Shermans vs King Tigers. If you're facing donkey riders, ten A-10s can do a lot more work than 1 F-35. (On the other hand, if your target owns S-400s, don't stooge in close with a large RCS.)

[@carldombrowski8719]

Also a good motto for NASA and the Space Shuttle, which put the US far behind the much weaker SU in terms of number of space launches...

[@CorePathway]

...or the F35?

[@Dragonblaster1]

Eric “Winkle” Brown flew more different types of plane than anyone ever has or ever will: 487 different types. He flew almost every mark of Spitfire, but that just counts as one type. He was the only pilot to fly the Me 163 rocket plane under power. He might have been the first pilot to break the speed of sound, if the Miles M52 had not been cancelled. At the end of the war, he flew back an Arado Ar234 jet bomber flanked by a pair of Spitfires. He had an amazing life and he was an accomplished writer. Any aircraft buff should check him out, IMO.

[@tomhaskett5161]

Check out his book 'Wings on my Sleeve'. Remarkable man - he also translated at the Nuhrenberg trials.

[@Pierluigi_Di_Lorenzo]

The A-5 was rather debugged, according to a relative of mine who was a mechanic for the He 177. But by then, all conventional bomber production was cancelled in favour of fighters.

[@wbertie2604]

It took a while for the B-29 to be debugged, the main issue also being engine fires.

[@Chrispy01a]

Really great series and fascinating content about a time that should never be forgotten - thank you.

[@miragetime2241]

DUDE. I just got done building my 1/72 scale model of this!

[@flyingtrap4169]

Don't drop it xD

[@flipvdfluitketel867]

Throw it against a wall for historical accuracy

[@bullwinklejmoos]

I built my scale model back in the 70s. Come to think of it, my friend and I put it out of its misery by simulating a crash and setting it on fire. How apropos.

[@merikatools568]

Did it catch fire?

[@bullwinklejmoos]

@@merikatools568 Boy did it. Not much left after the fire burned itself out other than parts of both wings, tail, and one gooey mess in between. A lot of our models suffered similar fates.

[@steve0592]

In fairness, the B-17 also had a nasty habit of catching fire, due to an oxygen supply hose rubbing on the dorsal turret and the B-29's engines overheated.

[@kirkmorrison6131]

A guy I knew back in the mid 70s to early 80s flew fighters for Germany 1941-45. He called it The Flying Cigarette Lighter.

[@ernesthill4017]

A beautiful body can hide an evil heart

[@heaven-is-real]

same for the american sherman tanks being called the ronson lighter

[@martinsims1273]

​@@heaven-is-real it's a fact that allied tanks were more deadly (less survivable) for their crews than German tanks, the reason being that most allied tanks had petrol engines (highly inflammable fuel), so if they took a hit, they were highly likely to burst into flame. Most German tanks had diesel engines, so although still burnable, the fuel did not so readily catch fire.

[@heaven-is-real]

@@martinsims1273 yes the shermans were nicknamed the ronson by the british (from the commercial "ronson lighters they light every time")

[@Peasmouldia]

If Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown RN thought you had a bad aeroplane, you would be well advised to take note....

[@asm1]

Yup and he flew them all, including the deathtraps like the ME163 and He 162

[@alanwilkin8869]

Amazing man Eric brown,

[@alanmoss3603]

He wrote several books about his flying experiences - I read Wings on my Sleeve which was excellent! What a life!

[@fredfarnackle5455]

@@alanmoss3603 Yes, I have that book too. It is recommended reading of the life of a very talented pilot with many 'firsts' and records to his name.

[@flusenbart]

@@asm1 Brown liked the He162

[@hibob418]

I finally get it. I never understood their preoccupation with needing this plane to dive bomb, but this guy cleared that up in one sentence - their bomb sights sucked. Boom. Thanks for clearing that up

[@opoxious1592]

Dive bombing is ment to hit a target well in proximity of friendly troops. It supposed to give the infantry support from the air, when they encountered a target that they couldn't overcome. All bomb sights sucked in WW2. For your information, no bomb sights at that time was accurate enough in WW2 to hit a single target. That's why the Allies switched to Area bombing, destroying entire cities in the process.

[@jamesrose1460]

One thing not mentioned is someone got smart...broke the rwo engines out into their own nacelles...making the HE-277. My grandfather saw both versions flying as a pathfinder...and shared a kill on the 177 at the controls of his Mosquito. Said it was quite the airplane to fight as it was far more maneuverable than it looked...and the reinfircing of the airframe made it an effort to bring down.

[@stevetheduck1425]

Having looked into some detailed accounts of what went wrong with the coupled engines used in the He-177, it seems the ultimate reason was that the engines leaked too much oil (a maintenance problem), which collected in areas that did not drain out (minor design problem), were heated by close proximity to the engines, which caught fire... Apparently the designers spent two years discovering this and not solving the problem. The Avro Manchester, which used coupled engines as well, had complexity and maintenance problems, which made the plane less reliable than needed. Just as these problems were solved, the Manchester III was developed which became the Lancaster and the Manchester was replaced (some airframes were even converted). Fortuitously, the Manchester's requirement to drop large torpedoes gave it a long bomb-bay, and the whole airframe was stressed for take-off using rockets attached tot he outside of the airframe, making it stronger in expected lack of power in future engines, plus overload bomb capacity. Both of these things made the Lancaster able to be developed into the greatest weight / largest bomb-carrying capacity of all allied bombers. In it's developed form as the Lincoln, it was intended to be a nuclear bomber as well. There was a serious problem with the German aircraft industry, and it was their ethos of guild / expert workers and top-down command and control.

[@tsegulin]

I understood that the DB-606 and DB-610 were improvisations until a higher powered engine like the Jumo-222 commenced service. The engineering staff at Daimler Benz were hard pressed keeping up with DB-601 production for the Bf-109 and Bf-110 and there were not many engineers left over for development. The oil problem as I recall, turned out to be due to an oversized oil pump which caused oil to froth and overflow onto white hot exhaust manifolds of the inboard cylinder banks starting fires. This was not easy to deduce. As if that wasn't bad enough, to reduce size and drag, an engine firewall had not been installed, which meant that if an engine fire could not be stopped quickly, it soon spread though the wing structure wrecking control actuators etc. The pity was that with 4 conventionally mounted engines as in the He-277 / He-177B and He-274 the aircraft performed well (if not made to dive bomb) but Goering's intransigence ensured the He-177B was denied to the Luftwaffe.

[@Theogenerang]

Remember that when this aircraft was being developed the RAF was dropping bombs in level flight and missing their targets by miles. Before GPS and inertial navigation technology bombing from level flight at a safe altitude was a gamble. Dive bombing improved accuracy and improved accuracy meant not having to revisit the same factory five or six times. What these crews would have given for guided weapons.

[@truetoffeeefc4life970]

When the RAF used the Tall boy's and GrandSlam bombs there accuracy was excellent however as you said during normal raids hitting the target was a real problem, that is the reason why they ended up doing area bombing raids,reasoning 'if we miss that at least we'll hit something else'.

[@phillydelphia8760]

Accuracy is more of an issue when most of the bombing is done at night, ya know.

[@markwilliams8369]

Almost impossible to even see an individual building in the dark

[@cade_olson]

Germany really knew how to make badass looking planes tho..

[@jaimepatena7372]

Same with uniforms...but really stupid. They spent money on uniforms..whereas US uniforms were east make and cheap. Spend money on weapons.

[@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188]

The Heinkel originally flew faster than any contemporary fighters, so the need for defensive armament was limited, and it still looks like something from a much later age. But its "surface evaporation" cooling in the wings made the metal change shape because of the difference from the outside temperature, so they had to make ordinary coolers, which also made its speed drop.

[@johnsummers2822]

This is probably your best produced video so far, it was very informative and I liked you choice of Winkle Brown quotes 👍

[@4strokesarejokes]

No there’s way more information aviation ones from Dark. If anything this one is not nearly in depth as some others

[@adamfrazer5150]

Ohhhh yes - it's turning into a Dark marathon lately - a Darkathon ! Many, many thanks to the whole team - you represent that slim little island of quality and factual entertainment on a see of YT flotsam. I like it Dark 👍

[@micstonemic696stone]

very interesting story's from Dark video's, just my things

[@adamfrazer5150]

@@micstonemic696stone right ? Always intriguing, always good quality sound, videos, graphics and info :)

[@micstonemic696stone]

@@adamfrazer5150 definitely a fan.... keep them coming Dark Docs .

[@videodistro]

Actually, errors on every video and wrong pronunciation in most of them. Not impressed.

[@nathanchildress5596]

We’ve got a player hater here… if you have more knowledge and expertise then make a channel dude. I love seeing this footage even if every detail isn’t perfect

[@carlcowin2246]

Narrator: "...Overinvesting resources in a bad design, can ruin an entire air force." F-35: *sweats nervously*

[@clickbaitcabaret8208]

The HE 177 is my favorite Third Reich technical fiasco.

[@catsooey]

I love that word 😆

[@robertcolajezzi5273]

It is beautiful

[@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music]

You did not enjoy their atomic bomb project?

[@flutter8712]

You can say whatever you want. This bomber looked very slick for its time

[@tomsmith3045]

except for the fires...

[@johngregg5735]

Germany tried to make the Dornier Do 17 "Flying Pencil" into a dive bomber by adding 4 air breaks to the tail. It really worked well except for ripping the entire tail section off.

[@EM_life-gr8sn]

Details details details....

[@SuccessShared]

The moniker 'Flying Pencil' belonged to the Hadley Page Hampden old chap

[@johngregg5735]

@@SuccessShared And I quote Dornier Do 17 - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Dornier_Do_17 The Dornier Do 17, sometimes referred to as the Fliegender Bleistift ("flying pencil"), is a light bomber of Nazi Germany during World War II. It was produced by Claudius Dornier's company, Dornier Flugzeugwerke.

[@SuccessShared]

@@johngregg5735 Thanks John. Obviously it was a battle of the flying pencils! Mind you, if you look at the Hadley Page it would win on thinness of the rear fuselage. Our neighbour used to fly them in WW2 and was not a fan

[@None-zc5vg]

@@SuccessShared The 'Hampden' was designed by Gustav Lachmann, a German who worked for Handley Page before and after WW2.

[@ChineseKiwi]

13:06 "Overinvesting resources in a bad design" *stares at Boeing*

[@TheCramMichael]

My 3rd Dark video of the day, I very much enjoy all your content. Thank you! 💯

[@alphakky]

For the Non-German speaker, Greif rhymes with "life".

[@phantomechelon3628]

It certainly seemed to cause the Germans plenty of "greif". 😁

[@thelagginggamer1309]

It actually means Griffin though

[@NiSiochainGanSaoirse]

So it SHOULD have been called the Greif-LESS then... Seeing as there would be NO life left after 1 flight

[@PedroConejo1939]

And Heinkel is pronounced Hine - kel, not Hin - kel.

[@davidelliott5843]

The De Havilland Mosquito was the only reliable fast bomber of the war. It could carry 4000 pounds of bombs all the way to Berlin or a larger load for less range. All done with two crew members and just two engines.

[@Walkercolt1]

Ever hear of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress??? 78 knots FASTER than the Mosquito at the Mosquitos best altitude and could carry 18,600 lbs. of bombs 6800 miles and could reach 63,000 ft. with 14,000 lbs. or as a photo-reconnaissance (F-9 Variant) could reach CLASSIFIED (yeah it still is!) feet at 409 knots.

[@mikus4242]

Germany had plenty of fighters. What they lacked was pilots and the fuel to train them.

[@jaimepatena7372]

Yes because P 51 pilots killed them.

[@jaredlemay9409]

It’s great how you go into the details surrounding these stories

[@Sacto1654]

The biggest problem was that the He 177 was saddled with the poor design of the Daimler-Benz DB 606 and DB 610 engines. Interestingly, a research project at the Luftwaffe's test center at Rechlin in eastern Germany identified in early 1943 some 56 causes of the engine fires, and an He 177 modified to correct these shortcomings actually worked very well in test flying. Had they fixed the problem earlier in 1942, the He 177 could have gone on to a more distinguished career as a heavy bomber and anti-shipping plane.

[@lumberchicken007]

Man, that’s one sweet coffin.

[@xxpussslayerxx9525]

Sure is

[@lestatangel]

🖤

[@InVacuo]

Great video, I learned a lot about the 177! Although I want to correct your pronunciation of Heinkel, the rule of thumb is every time you see "ei" in German it's pronounced like "eye".

[@OffGridInvestor]

Look, Americans can't pronounce ANYTHING right, particularly car names. Jeremy Clarkson went to the biggest dealership in the USA, in Texas. Asked the guy what they sold. 15 brands and NOT ONE pronounced correctly....

[@EllieMaes-Grandad]

@@OffGridInvestor In NYC twenty years ago, I tried to buy some tuna from a local deli, to put in a salad. The guy looked at me, not understanding, so I pointed to it in the fridge unit. "Ah" he exclaimed, "toona! Two nations separated by a common language.

[@falloutbos34]

when Hitler can point out the flaws in your aircraft, you may want to rethink it.

[@katarinazelenova4748]

"I mean it's pretty cool, but is there a way to stick an 88 or 120mm mm flak on it?"

[@joeyr7294]

LOL nailed it!

[@laszlokaestner5766]

What amazes me is that both Hitler and Goering were against it but the project kept going. It was like a zombie with nobody able to stop it.

[@petergray2712]

@@laszlokaestner5766 That was a result of Goering's organizational incompetence and multitasking. When he took command of the Luftwaffe in the mid 1930s, Goering created a byzantine bureaucratic structure that he staffed with cronies from his WW1 flying days, officers of questionable competence who otherwise enjoyed his full confidence and were therefore prone to executing their own agendas unmolested. Combine that with Goering have two or three other jobs as Hitler's right hand, and his addiction to Percocet, and the Luftwaffe quickly became an unmanageable morass.

[@tomsmith3045]

@@petergray2712 I think that more or less describes most of German government in the 30's. And New York State government today.

[@firewalker1372]

Let’s take a giant bomber and turn it into a dive bomber...... Shit, what could go wrong 😂.

[@alvaricoke41]

Also don't forget the part about squeezing two V12 engines together.

[@mattbite]

Italians also got some great ideas, like Piaggio P-108A - 4 engined heavy bomber the size of B-17, armed with 102mm cannon in the nose, intended to fly low and slow and kill enemy naval vessels :)

[@HighlanderNorth1]

💥🥴 Worse yet:. "Everyone else has 4 engine heavy bombers, but all we have are 2 engine medium bombers. So let's take 4 engines, shove each pair of engines together into a tight space, and only powering 1 propeller, so that each engine pair overheats, doesn't provide much more overall thrust than 1 lone engine, AND isn't capable of carrying a larger bomb load than our 2 engine medium bombers..... It's brilliant! Build 1,500 of them ASAP"!!

[@firewalker1372]

Next thing ya know, they are going to strap missiles and machine turrets to air tractor crop dusters.......... Oh wait.......

[@andrewclayton4181]

The vulture engines used on the Manchester, were paired to drive a single prop. They didn't work well either. Swapping the system for four separate engines proved a winner. Also I have heard of a Lancaster doing shallow diving to improve accuracy, and it works. The airframe was good enough to take the strain.

[@jimh4375]

We have one plane that's really good at dive bombing. We should make ALL of our planes dive bombers!

[@dx1450]

Makes far more sense than improving the bomb sights.

[@dx1450]

@David Logan I mean, really, their thought process was, "Our bomb sights suck and are totally inaccurate, so let's spend millions of Riechsmarks on giving this heavy bomber dive bombing capability in order to improve accuracy." Makes as much sense as building it with four engines but only two propellers. I'm not an engineer, but I'd think you'd get more thrust if you used four propellers instead of two.

[@dx1450]

@David Logan No I mean instead of having two engines run one propeller on each side, have a traditional four engine, four propeller configuration like on the B17. Would have made a bit more sense, I think. Trying to cram the engines in close together like they did just led to overheating.

[@ThatsMrPencilneck2U]

@@dx1450 Dornier would have solved the problem by having the front engine drive a puller screw and the rear engine drive a pusher screw. That way, they could have even put a firewall between the engines.

[@The_Mimewar]

Coupled 2 big engines to ONE prop....can’t imagine what went wrong

[@alexandermenzies9954]

Shades of the Manchester.

[@The_Mimewar]

@@alexandermenzies9954 you’re very correct

[@gregorymalchuk272]

There are other engiens like this. I believe certain Shermans had an engine which was actually 5 Chrysler flathead straight sixes geared together.

[@The_Mimewar]

@@gregorymalchuk272 that’s nuts! But I want to know more

[@billytheshoebill5364]

@@The_Mimewar its called Chrysler multibank engine

[@MaxCruise73]

Always liked the look of the HE177. Built a model of one. The version I built was equipped with three anti shipping guided missiles.

[@radugabrielpopa]

No... What the fuck are you talking about? Frit-X's are not missiles. They're bombs, and are radio guided.

[@MaxCruise73]

@@radugabrielpopa While the profanity is uncalled for, you are right and wrong. My model is NOT equipped with Fritz-X guided bombs. My model is equipped with the Henschel Hs 293 guided bomb. One difference, the Henschel Hs 293 has a rocket booster. Each booster (liquid-propellant rocket HWK 109-507 motor, 5.9 kN (1,300 lbf) provided thrust for 10 seconds. Hence the rocket nozzles on the model. After 10 seconds, the rocket ran out of fuel. The Hs293 then glided into the target while being guided by the bombardier.

[@MaxCruise73]

@@radugabrielpopa Henschel He293 kzbin.info/www/bejne/i6OQeGxtd7unjpI

[@MaxCruise73]

@@radugabrielpopa Looking at my model, I discovered I installed the missiles upside down. Rocket nozzles are supposed to be below the horizontal stabilizers, not above as installed on my model. Quite an oops.

[@fractalign]

Flaws aside it was a sweet looking ride.

[@thomaszhang3101]

The concept of a fast diving heavy bomber is very forward thinking I must say. During the most bloody years over London, around 30-40% Ju 88 and He-111 were shot down but less than 10% He-177 were lost, making it the most survivable heavy bomber of any nation period. And in war thunder, He-177 can dive so fast that it was often used by experienced players as fighters and bomber hunters. Not sure how much of that is based on real life but it does attest to the structural strength and high speed maneuverability of this plane.

[@franciscosoares2815]

Yeah maybe becauss the plane couldnt even get to london

[@ThatsMrPencilneck2U]

Investing in more fighters would have definitely slowed Germany's defeat. Germany's main problem was that they never had much of a way to attack England, or inflict damage on Soviet industry. If you can't win, the only thing you can do is lose. Germany never had the resources to win WWII, so even if the He177 had have been a reliable weapon platform, it wouldn't have made much difference.

[@tomsmith3045]

"If you can't win, the only thing you can do is lose." Best quote I've read this year.

[@robinorton1619]

That's a dubious proposition. Germany wasn't short of fighters; plus it had the Me 262 which could have been a total game-changer, but as stated in the film, they lacked fuel, plus (as stated in another reply) skilled and experienced pilots. To top it off, the genius in charge insisted that they should mainly be used as fighter-bombers, inflicting pinpricks on the advancing allies whilst British and US 'heavies' flattened German cities.

[@SidneyBroadshead]

The dive-bomber concept was popular among most high-tech nations with air forces due to the inaccuracy and randomness of iron bombs. The experiences of the combatant forces in the Spanish Civil War reinforced this belief. The big problem was that dive-bomber pilots would black out from the gee-force; the StuKa had an autopilot that would pull the plane out of a dive to prevent them plowing into the ground. The United States Navy didn't fully abandon the concept until after WW2. The US Army Air Corps only abandoned it in 1944, but had been focused on building a strategic air force since the late 1930s. The A36 Apache dive bomber (1942 - 1944), the basis for the P51 Mustang long range fighter, was used on the Mediterranean and South Pacific fronts in small numbers.

[@ogilkes1]

There was a four engined version produced which overcame most of the engine related issues. Goering, however, forbade its production.

[@JMGlider]

With 4 props you mean?

[@mikeryan7468]

Ive seen a pic of that

[@quakethedoombringer]

They were switching to defensive war at that point so naturally fighters and interceptors are prioritized

[@kl0wnkiller912]

As originally designed and built the He-177 showed great promise and performed extremely well. It was faster and could fly higher than the any fighter anywhere. It had many advanced features and was well ahead of it's time. The article stated "Hitler despised it, Goering despised it". Not sure where that came from but Hitler was the source that caused all the issues with it. Hitler (and then Goering) insisted that this heavy bomber be able to function as a dive bomber. This forced Heinkel to do extensive redesigns of the airframe in order to make it strong enough to handle much higher G loading than it was ever planned for and the added weight decreased bombload speed and altitude performance significantly. In addition, the DB606 (later DB610) coupled engines ran hot and had issues with the oil pump producing foaming in the oil, which caused engine overheating. One of the advanced features in the design was the use of evaporative cooling systems which ran cooling lines under the skin of the aircraft instead of radiators in an attempt to improve aerodynamic streamlining. This system was troublesome and when Heinkel tried to refit the aircraft with standard annular radiators Goering insisted that the Evaporative cooling be retained and perfected. It never allowed for adequate cooling and when coupled with the oil system issues and a very tight cowl, caused extreme overheating. This is what led to the engine fires. By the -A5 model most of these were corrected but due to Goering and Hitler rushing earlier models into production the aircraft already had a bad reputation. Had Goering and Hitler left it alone the aircraft would have been a superlative heavy bomber. BTW, Heinkel tried to create a standard 4 engine version (He-277) but Goering would not allow it, even though a prototype was built in secret. Too late to make a difference though. Also, by 1943 Germany already had captured Norden bombsights and had a viable level bombing sight.

[@65SATisfaction]

Thank you. Half of the comments on this vide would be eliminated if viewers read through comments like this before posting theirs. Cheers.

[@wcurtin1962]

The 177"s legacy continues on today in the German automotive industry.

[@silasisaspicyboi7458]

I work in a Auto shop, and yea your right :,(

[@ayebeemk2ayebeemk285]

are they still trying to put 2 engines behind one propeller.?.....

[@Bartonovich52]

No. They are just doing things that nobody else does because it’s too expensive or complex or unreliable or all three. Things break on German cars that don’t even exist on my car.

[@ellischucklindsay7749]

Learn something new everyday....thanks for the insight guys

[@guidor.4161]

You don't mention the He 177B, He 277 or He 274, which were 4-engined developments and at least would have solved the engine/fire issues?

[@sarjim4381]

The He 277 never was more than a paper design. The He 274 may have done better if work was started at least a year earlier. By the time the prototypes were completed, the B-29 was in service and the 274 was already obsolescent. The 177B probably had the best chance of being a successful bomber once the Luftwaffe got past the coupled four engine design and produced a proper four engine design. Once again, it was too little and too late in terms of Germany developing a long range heavy bomber. None of the three rate more than a passing mention in the race to develop a good four engine bomber.

[@jimdavis8391]

The Luftwaffe would have done better buying the four engined Italian Piaggo.

[@ffjsb]

@@jimdavis8391 Germany would done even better if they hadn't started the war.. Defeat was inevitable.

[@paoloviti6156]

@@sarjim4381 correct as it could have simplified very much the development of this bomber and possibly by putting He 117 in service much earlier (as the Lancaster did by getting rid of Manchester fitted the awful coupled Rolls Royce Vulture) but in my opinion the real problem remained the ever more chronic shortage of fuel that created so much havoc to the Luftwaffe and the army...

[@lairdcummings9092]

Germany notoriously chased every rabbit it could even think of; catching very few. They suffered from completely irrational resource management. Even the few completed projects were mostly wasted resources - costing far more than they returned in utility.

[@alessiodecarolis]

The sheer lunacy of making a 35tons heavy bomber a dive bomber! The USAAF never tried this with their heavies, and they'd pioneered the dive bombing, but with SMALL aircrafts, the same mistake struck with the JU88, it could've been more faster, but was wheighed down for dive bombing, contrary to the Mosquito, wich was more flexible and efficient as fast bomber.

[@gnat6664]

Love the He177 getting some coverage. A rather interesting plane & history. Well done! Suggest a video on the other WWII plane that killed many crew due to many engine issues - the beautiful B29

[@hertzair1186]

Actually the FW-200 Condor was the Luftwaffe’s main mass-produced long range bomber....effective in the Atlantic war...Churchill called it the “Scourge of the Atlantic”

[@Jim-Tuner]

The FW-200 was the scourge of the atlantic more for its long-range recon missions and the coordination of those spotting missions with the u-boats. It had a degree of success as a sea bomber in 1940, but it was already obsolete when the war started.

[@colanitower]

I have a model of this. After 30 years it's still in one piece.

[@paulthiessen6467]

Prob because you didn’t try to use it as a dive bomber

[@dx1450]

Probably lasted longer than any of the actual He 177's.

[@cornbreadfedkirkpatrick9647]

Because it hasn't moved.

[@Skyprince27]

If you fuelled it, it would probably burst in flames.

[@janmale7767]

I think the H- 117 was a brilliant design , very modern for it's time but the war situation didn't afford it the time to iron out the snags!

[@EricAlbin]

"Grief" sounds like a reasonable name....

[@heaven-is-real]

good grief what a disaster of a project, where everything is designed wrong

[@GRAHAMAUS]

It's "greif" (pronounced like GRIFE), which means "gripping". Maybe that is the effect it had on its pilots: a real white knuckle ride ;-)

[@sarkybugger5009]

@@GRAHAMAUS Agreed, and it's pronounced Hine kel, not Henkel.

[@964cuplove]

@@GRAHAMAUS Greif is the german word for GRIFFIN

[@GRAHAMAUS]

@@964cuplove You know, you're right. And I thought it was... until I checked with Google, which unreliably informed me otherwise.

[@scootergeorge9576]

The Luftwaffe was for the most part, well equipped with fighter aircraft. What they increasingly lacked was fuel and competent replacement pilots.

[@elguapo1690]

"What use is the best aircraft in the world if it can't stop falling apart." German engineering achilles heel in a nutshell.

[@matthewcaughey8898]

That’s most German cars. Own a Porsche 944 turbo and you’ll know exactly what he was getting at

[@NiSiochainGanSaoirse]

If it can't stop falling apart then HOW is it brilliant engineering??? 🤣🤣🤣

[@coryfice1881]

@@NiSiochainGanSaoirse Overengineered is just sugar coating for you worked on it so much you actually made it defective.

[@AnEnemy100]

Nazism proves the Dunning-Kruger effect is not just a theory.

[@Bartonovich52]

Rube-Goldberg engineering. Complex solutions to problems that should have just been avoided in the first place. Things break on German cars that don’t even exist on my car.

[@thomaskerr6265]

These videos are great. It's like what the history Channel used to be but with a more ominous narrator

[@galacticthreat1236]

Yay more ww2 stuff!!! Can we see the ho 229 or the volksjager?

[@rjs1jd]

Yeah I 2nd that!

[@brakk727]

Great idea, I’m up for that as well.

[@butchoharechicago6657]

Germany produced the world,s first jet fighters but could not produce a 4 engine strategic heavy bomber. Amazing!

[@butchoharechicago6657]

+@@apis_aculei A Luftwaffe General had read Mein Kamph and realized the need for a Ural Bomber. However he was killed in an aircrash before the war. Goering was a junkie and idiot when it came to strategic thinking. The Italians produced the Piago-108. Just as well armed as the B-17 with the same bombload. Only active Axis heavy bomber produced in numbers. Germans did produce Arado-234. World,s first jet bomber. Again Goering and Hitler could not understand high tech beyond a donkey cart.

[@degrelleholt6314]

If Goring had actually been paying attention to what was happening in the Luftwaffe, he would have had ample chances to say that about the He177 and many other bone-headed ideas.

[@spaceghost8995]

Goering was too busy eating bratwurst and struedel and collecting stolen artwork.

[@mrGovnoff]

This bomber saved a lot of lives draining resources from Germany and weakening the Luftwaffe.

[@weirdshibainu]

A total of 1,135 were built. In the scheme of things it's production and resources used had little impact on Germanys defeat.

[@elennapointer701]

Right before the project was shut down Heinkel unveiled a version of the He177 with a traditional four-nacelle layout that reportedly flew well and solved all of the inflammability problems that plagued the twin-nacelle version but, by the time it arrived, Nazi Germany had neither the resources nor the patience needed to adopt it, so it was scrapped.

[@neilbuckley1613]

In Britain the Avro company developed a heavy bomber with two engines on one shaft [Rolls Royce Vulture] called the Avro Manchester; it was a failure. Avro re-designed it with four Rolls Royce Merlin engines and produced the Lancaster.

[@amc8118]

I like your show and think you do a great job with it. The Germans got the design and or idea for the design with their Stutka Dive Bombers from Curtis Aviation in Buffalo NY. Gehring actually traveled there years before the war and found Curtis had the best plane for dive bombing that the United States snubbed and didn't take seriously. You should look into what I'm saying. I may not be completely correct in my statement, but the base of my statement is accurate.

[@christopherkroussoratsky2014]

The dive bombing aspect has been overplayed in this presentation along with so many other aspects, no mention of the effectiveness of the aircraft when it was used to launch weapons like Fritz X radio guided bombs or HS 293 radio guided missiles. Why would it need to dive bomb to launch these weapons?

[@Lifesmechanic]

The Fritz X was first tested with a HE 111, but almost all testing and combat(very limited) use was done with Dornier Do 217 bombers from what I can research. The HE 117 was not used with that ordinance except for a couple of test bombers that were produced. The dive bombing aspect isn't overplayed by the video, that was the German strategy. Those are glide bombs, so ya obviously they don't need to dive to launch those weapons, but again, those weapons were not used on HE 117s. The few Fritz X that were mounted to HE 117 for testing were actually "tossed" out of the aircraft to deploy. They had to climb, release, then descend/level off. If the HE 117 weren't so problematic they may have modified more to launch those giant radio bombs but in my opinion, the German High Command didn't have interest in wasting any more resources on HE 117s.

[@HYDRAdude]

Agreed, the main fault of the plane were the poor engines. Even without the dive aspect the plane still would have suffered plenty of issues due to the engine, and any other air frame using those engines would have suffered a similar fate.

[@Bartonovich52]

However.. dive bombing was the only reason why it had the double engines. The HE-277 which was a conventional four engine version of the HE-177 had a wingspan almost 30 feet longer. While four separate engines provides better bending relief for the wing itself (imagine hanging clothes on a clothesline evenly spread out vs all at one point) the overall stresses from the propeller drag (which is required to keep from exceeding maximum dive speed) and form drag of the wing are much greater, requiring much heavier structure. Launching the HS 293 was not really dependent on a unique aircraft design. The DO-217 and the FW-200 both carried it as well. The only reason why the HE-177 was used is because it was available. The same reasoning applies to why the A-10 is used against ISIS when it was designed to knock out tanks in the Fulda Gap. There are lots of planes that can do the same job just as good or better for much cheaper.. like the A-29 or AC-208.

[@christopherkroussoratsky2014]

@@Bartonovich52 It had coupled engines to reduce drag, and for better aerodynamics, nothing to do with dive bombing, that was specified long after the design was locked in for production, it was never designed for that role

[@tricosteryl]

@@Bartonovich52 "dive bombing was the only reason why it had the double engines" I dont agree because the dive bombing capability was not in the requirements. This came lately while the pre-production series were already started. Also the configuration was optimized for performance at hi altitude, and the real need was far different. So the HQ asked for a heavy bomber and changed its mission all along the development phase, any project is doomed in this case...!

[@thomasaquinas2600]

The HE 177 was a bizarre concept; can you imagine designing the B29 as a dive bomber? When the Luftwaffe lost the chief proponent of strategic bombing but still had Ernst Udet(the patron saint of dive bombing), the course was clear. Germany never had the ability to build as the US did the B24, but it still might've afforded 100 bombers, enough to reach Moscow or London at crucial times and places.

[@chost-059]

Ah yes finally you made a video on this one, my favourite bomber of ww2.

[@oatlord]

Anyone else open the comment section not to read but to lower the brightness from all the thumbnails?

[@danzervos7606]

The 177 had extensive de-icing equipment blowing heated air to most of the wing and tail surfaces. I believe the heat came from burning fuel in small burners. I think this indicated they anticipated use of the plane over the North Atlantic.

[@4strokesarejokes]

**Eastern Front

[@Jim-Tuner]

That is true. It was intended as a long-term replacement for the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor for missions over the Atlantic.

[@bullwinklejmoos]

@@Jim-Tuner Now that’s a nice airplane, the FW 200. Built a model back in the 70s. Happy to say it survived for many years before my mom culled my collection.

[@bryanpalmer9660]

Fascinating documentary-keep up the good work Auckland New Zealand 2021

[@ihategooglealot3741]

Given the massacre of the Stuka by RAF defences and the steady improvement in AA capability against dive bombing attacks the idea of a 35 ton dive bomber is psychotic. I suggest that the one off raid on london may have seen a low casualty rate due to its novelty. Numerous allied fighters were amply capable of catching and destroying it, and their standard armaments in late war (20mm and .50cal) were amply capable of destroying far more robust aircraft.

[@SpearFisher85]

Good points if they didn't blow themselves up before anyone could shoot them down. 😆

[@bullwinklejmoos]

I understand that the Luftwaffe was happy with the way the Stuka brought terror to the countries Germany was invading and thought the same would happen when they planned their attack on England. What wound up happening was that the RAF fighters took such a heavy toll on the Stukas that they were forced to operate only at night.

[@Jim-Tuner]

The low casuality rate for the He-177 in that operation over britain was due to its unusual operational characteristics during bombing missions. In particular it tended to change altitute alot and operate at altitudes that were not normal for bombers. If there had been more of them used over a longer period of time, the fighter interception techniques used would have easily adapted to it.

[@SpearFisher85]

@@Jim-Tuner ya. They would have had fun practicing on the only 3 of a flight of 14. 😆

[@ihategooglealot3741]

@@SpearFisher85 Trying to dive bomb with a tempest's 2x20mm hispanos on your tail when the smaller, but less fragile Ju87s fell apart under 303 fire...

[@ronstreet6706]

I think that the problems with the engines would have been eradicated if they had just used two engine nacelles instead of one. The Lancaster bomber was also designed with two engines but one propeller per wing. "Bomber" Harris went up in one of the two propeller prototypes, and after a couple of minutes, turned to the pilot and said "Land!". He looked at the model of the plane, added another engine nacelle, and we ended up with one of the most effective British bombers of all time.

[@spjmrlahey4008]

"Over investing resources in a bad design can ruin an entire air force." Looking at you, F35.

[@Alphonselle]

the design itself isnt bad. blame the entire DOD for expecting a single plane to do everything, then wants different variations of it.

[@pleaseenteranamelol711]

Not really

[@Einwetok]

@@Alphonselle They do that with all designs, it's not like it's their money they're wasting.

[@VikingTeddy]

Thats not true at *at* *all*. In the very beginning of development the F-35 *seemed* to go off budget and have issues because the media didn't know jack shit about military r&d. The issues in the Military industrial complex didn't help. Every single new weapons system has issues when its new. And the F-35 is paying itself back, as is normal for a new export plane.

[@jamesnull5415]

This was very interesting! Thanks for posting this!🇺🇸

[@hinz1]

Eric Brown had flown them all ;-)

[@davidgifford8112]

Well not all, but more than any other.

[@lmyrski8385]

The US and British also had to drop a huge amount of bombs to hit a target. The Germans could not afford the same sized fleet of bombers as the British and Americans, and could not afford the same huge loss of bombers so they hoped being able to dive bomb would solve that. Very rational, but not hard to perfect especially when the plane fell down the priority list. Many of the defects were gotten under control, but too late. When used correctly, such as on some late war raids against the Soviet rail network, they were very succesful and the Soviet fighters were not up to dealing with them. Unfortunately, these missions were curtailed due to a lack of fuel, and the very last raids saw them used in desperate operations that no large bomber would have been able to do without suffering heavy losses on. The B29 was also a problematic and deadly plane when it began service, but the USA had the time and resources to improve it. As for losing the war for Germany, I would hardly call whoever said that a "historian." If the Germans had the time and resources, the plane would have matured nicely.

[@tomsmith3045]

This plane might have worked well against the Russians, but would have had a much harder time against England. Partly because England is a much smaller and thus easier to defend airspace, and partly because RAF fighter command had the best air defense coordination in the world at the time. The Germans would only have been able to use it at night, against area targets, in England.

[@channelsixtysix066]

A flying turd the Luftwaffe desperately attempted to polish, but to no avail.

[@emil-1609]

With the A-5 version the reliability problems, where solved. When it waa used in combat it was a very good bomber, but memes do their part on misinforming.

[@channelsixtysix066]

@@emil-1609 The aviation world is littered with such stories. The Comet, the Electra L-188 and the perennial favorite, the DC-10. Once an aircraft develops a reputation, very little can be done to rehabilitate it.

[@channelsixtysix066]

@Kurtis Wagner I must have missed it. So no, it wasn't intended. 😊

[@channelsixtysix066]

@Kurtis Wagner Aaahh, I did wonder about that, but thought no it couldn't be .... 😊

[@greaseman01]

Thats a very high quailty b&w crash film, best ive seen.

[@paleoman8854]

it was american and in color.

[@samiam5557]

The name "Greif" was appropriate.

[@AyoubusMagnus]

ONE OF MY FAVOURITE PLANES IN WARTHUNDER

[@arcadia449]

One was shot down in fields not far from where I live.

[@Nevernotalone]

Great video. Thank you for your skill and passion for history’s details

[@chrisb.1116]

Staccato narration distracts from well done production.

[@goldgeologist5320]

Incompatible design problems sounds like a description of the Chevy Vega and Ford Pinto!

[@strikereureka5081]

Ah yes, big heavy sluggish bomber good for diving attack.

[@dave3682]

Eh, I don't know about sluggish. With a top speed of 351mph, only the 357mph B-29 was faster among production heavy bombers of WWII.

[@strikereureka5081]

@@dave3682 I mean sluggish more in terms of roll rate and turn time. A bomber this size would undoubtedly be slow to respond to pilot inputs making it pretty much unsuitable for dive bombing.

[@dave3682]

@@strikereureka5081 Ah, gotcha

[@neilfoster9508]

Could you imagine using the B-29 or Lancaster as a dive bomber!

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

Nice footage!!! keep working bros!!!

[@alm5992]

"What's the time!? It's time to get 177!" (ILL) -Beastie Boys

[@Bartonovich52]

3M TA3

[@edwardcnnell2853]

PART ONE Utiliquest had the BG&E contract locked in years ago. They did it so well that when the contract came to an end it was resigned without seeking competitive bids. Then they screwed it up and lost the contract. I was there and this is what happened. Okay, it was a dream contract designed by G&E to be a model for utility companies around the country. All locators assigned to the BG&E contract were to locate BG&E utilities only. Locators were to assigned an area and it was to be theirs not get shifted around. The locator was to become knowledgeable of all the utilities in their area this way. This worked out for Utiliquest because productivity greatly improved. The locator knew the roads so well they could route work efficiently, quickly and spend less time studying prints because they had been at these locations many times. Contractors were almost always dealing with the same locator and a working relationship was established. We each had the others phone numbers and would communicate as needed. Locators were on Pay For Performance and earned more money for greater production which also meant the company was making more money as the workforce need not be as large. Locators got a bonus for every so many ticket charges without an at fault damage. This bonus was progressive and starter at I think $100. If you did not get another damage it progressively increased until a cap of something like $700. The company also got a bonus for meeting damage goals. If they met the goal it got a bonus and a larger bonus for exceeding it. The goal was unique. A combined total of both at fault and contractor fault damages per 10,000 party charges. Sound bad but the goals were exceeded. This success was due to the locators being in a long term assigned area. They knew where everything was and worked closely with the excavators. They also knew what digs had or did not have a ticket. Seeing a dig without a ticket, or straying outside ticket area, we would tell the contractor. Contractor calls in for ticket and gives us the number and we would mark for them. Each locator basically ran their area. The bonus money given the locator was less than the costs of a damage which was usually $1,000 but could be much more. Personally my experience was like my coworkers. I am tired and have a stubborn streetlight wire I thought it out and made sure it is right. Losing my bonus would also mean building my level up again and that streetlight wire was easily $1,000 in lost income. So the company still profited after paying the bonus plus it ensured they kept the contract. Each group of locators had a BG&E liaison assigned to it. The liaison would hold a monthly meeting with the locators and fill them in on all events and changes. If the locator and their supervisor could not locate a lie the liaison would meet and try. If they also could not locate the line they declared it uncountable and the company and locator were not held liable for any damages. If you need to access inside a pad mount transformer the liaison would meet you, open the pad mount and hook up your transmitter. (I had the primary feed to the Secret Service cut and the Utiliqust damage investigator declared it at fault. Met with the BG&E liaison at site and he declared it unlocatable releasing I and the company from the damage) PART TWO Utiliquest had a very secure contract where underbidding could not replace them because BG&E was so pleased with the performance they were not putting the contract out for bid. So what happened? What happened was corporate greed and false thinking about what was the right way to operate a locate firm and began to systematically dismantle the operation. First thing they did was reassign Carl Brumfield who set up and ran the BG&E operation. He was replaced with a drone who lacked Carl's experience. The replacement was a corporate drone with no backbone who would say yes to every unfounded complaint any excavator made. So the leadership that made the BG&E contract working and profitable was gone. One thing that became known was how the tickets for damage free bonus were counted. Frank Bachman our top producer who was also damage free for years kept a log of all the tickets he did. Then he got one bonus in half the time expected. This was because a new programmer corrected what he thought was a flaw in the computer program. BG&E provided both gas and electric so there was 'party' charge for gas and a party charge for electric. There was an area where BG&E provided electric but gas service was by Washington Gas Light. We were instructed to code out the gas as Clear. Turns out the program error was by intent and they were not counting our Clear tickets in these areas towards our bonus. But BG&E was still billed for this as a party charge. The answer to our objections is why should locators get paid for doing nothing. Okay sounded right except Utiliquest was getting pay for this. Since they did not want to share that money we found another code that meant not in service area and we started coding them out that way so Utiliquest could not collect money for it either. Next Utilquest charted the end of the damage free bonus. That since not all locators qualified for this bonus the damage free bonus, and our combined at fault and excavator at fault damage were lower than other firms at fault damage rate, was a failure. So instead of the damage free locators getting a bonus everybody including those with damages would get a bonus. (I know it sounds stupid but stupid is as stupid does) They set a gross bonus that can be earned with a cap that they would not pay beyond. Then the deducted from that amount the costs of at fault damages. The was not 'cap' for damage cost deductions and any negative balance was carried over to the next year. They never paid anyone a bonus under the new program. Next Pay For Performance was done away with. They were perplexed as to why production dropped and overtime increased. Part of the production loss was from the practice of their top producers, I was one, of how time was logged. With PFP you start Summer with a lower pay rate due to less work in Winter. Summer is heavy workload so you start Winter with a higher pay rate. Now in the Summer workload the company pushed to reduce overtime. We were on paper time sheets and us top producers worked hours not on the time sheet. We would work through lunch and a little early or a little later. Even come in Saturday morning to pick up a short project. So the company was not paying out overtime and paid us a little more an hour over the Winter. Seemed it worked out to the best interest of all. PART THREE When PFP ended all time was logged on the time sheets. It was about this time I left but kept in touch. The next thing was they thought locators were not smart enough to route their own work. So they had the IT Department program the computers to route the work. Locators could not change the route and only saw so many tickets at a time. They would do a site and then come back a little later to do the site next door. If there was a job that the locator had to schedule until a part of the day when traffic did not interfere it had to be done when the computer set it to be done. So when their top locator was called in and dressed down for falling production he told them to talk to the IT Department. Another thing that for Utiliquest tat was a problem was locators marking exclusively for BG&E. Utilquest had other contracts in the BG&E service area. For them the idea of one site visited by two of their locators was intolerable. So they pushed and eventually got away from locators that marked exclusively for BG&E. The cumulative effect of all this is performance became so poor BG&E put the contract out for bid rather than just keep Utiliquest and not consider another firm. Had BG&E began the program hiring One Call Concepts Locating then OCC would still be locating for them today. That and the success would be copied by other utility firms around the nation. The HE 177 used two engines in one nacelle to drive one propeller because in it's early development there were not engines of adequate power. With two engines in one nacelle wind drag is reduced. This reduction turned out not to advantageous with the major problem of overheating and complex drive train. Towards the end a four nacelle model was produced eliminating these problems. But it was too late. Even the ME 262 jet fighter was fitted with dive brakes in an attempt to perform ground attacks in the role of the Stuka. The German doctrine was that the Luftwaffe was to support the infantry. They looked at the last war and determined that long range interdiction bombing was ineffective. So they made the classic mistake of trying to fight the previous war. This they did while not considering they had changed their tactics to overcome their shortcomings of the previous war. There were competent advocates of doing this better but fortunately for the world they we ignored.

[@jrob8931]

Every plane in every war was apparently called the “flying coffin”

[@jrob8931]

Except for the B-29

[@johnjohnon8767]

The B 24 liberator was notorious for losses I believe

[@Jim-Tuner]

For every B-29 lost to enemy action over Japan, 2 B-29s were lost due to accidents, mechanical problems or engine fires.

[@francoistombe]

If I recall correctly ? the Brits built a heavy bomber with two double engines like this He 177. It had terrible overheating issues...sound familiar? It was called the Manchester. They dropped the 2 powerplant design and went to 4 separate single engines. They re-named it as the Lancaster.