Discovery Wings Clash of Wings 13of13 The Bombers XviD AC3 MVGroup Forum

[@SabraStiehl]

Obviously, as in any project there were omissions and errors in this series of videos, but from my point of view this is the most realistic and non-propagandized documentary on WW II that I've seen, and I've been checking 'em out for years now. Congrats to the authors, and thanks to uzumymw88.

[@4FYTfa8EjYHNXjChe8xs7xmC5pNEtz]

I disagree

[@telluride4017]

In my opinion the best documentaries about Airplanes

[@davidnewmexico5305]

This was a fantastic compilation of footage of the bombers of WWII. Thank you.

[@cassiecraft8856]

I had been looking for this series,but I forgot the name of it. I remembered the opening with the cockpit of the ME-109 on the Military Channel,and that it was very informative,and accurate,but that was all. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH!!!

[@Greywolfgrafix]

I've been inside that Collings Foundation B-24J Liberator. They flew it in to the Chattanooga airport in 1990, and we went to see it.

[@luvr381]

The B-17 could carry 14,000 lbs of bombs, same as the Lancaster, just not all internally. There were external bomb racks for the B-17, but the 8th air force chose to use the standard 6,000 lb bombload as this gave an increased cruise speed and ceiling, making the B-17 harder to intercept. Also, the B-17s and -24s were enough more accurate to erase the effective difference in loads.

[@georgepantazis141]

So no it didn,t I think the moskito cared more.

[@mikecimerian6913]

A lot of ground to cover in 50 minutes. A good doc as introduction. Each of these planes has hours of documentaries on its own.

[@somethingelse4878]

38:10 so the Lancaster could carry about 6 ton and the b17 almost 2 ton the same as the light mosquito bomber. Only the b29 could carry about the same as the lank That's not bad for a upgraded add on job of a aircraft It had less armor and if I remember 30cal the b17 had 50cal I think

[@tonyunderwood9678]

Too many people talk about absolutes. They shouldn't be talking about how much weight in bombs an aircraft could carry, they should be talking about the whole payload. The B-17 was officially "billed" as having a combat load of 20,000 lbs. This is pretty much meaningless unless you consider how much of that load is defense weaponry, how much is fuel, and how much is the actual bomb load. Now, here's the rub. Shorter missions meant heavier bomb loads. Deep pushes into enemy territory meant more fuel, thus a lighter bomb load. We need to remember that the design maximum bomb load for a B-17G both internal and external ordinance was 17,000 lbs, NOT 4000 lbs as I've seen repeated here. The claims that the Mossie's bomb load equaled the B-17's max bomb load is nonsense. Also... as outlined in Roger Freeman's writings, the maximum design takeoff weight of the B-17G models (~65,000 lbs, give or take) was exceeded many times as a matter of routine. Several times there were B-17s loaded to the gills with payload to include max fuel and internal bomb load and took off weighing over 72,000 lbs. There were numerous instances of B-17s loaded so heavy they would crack through the runways lining up for takeoff. Another aviation expert historian who is very sharp at this sort of thing (Lanc vs Fort) explained in great detail how for all practical purposes when range vs payload of both airplanes was considered, neither the B-17 nor the Lancaster carried any more load than the other. Both good airplanes, the Lanc had a larger bomb bay than the B-17, but the B-17 could carry more bombs via it's ability to carry external stores, not unlike the B-52 that hangs the additional ordinance from shackles under the wings, although this was seldom done in the ETO since the USAAF was looking for max range first, and largest bomb load second, and external stores cause lots of drag. This is why a lot of times B-17s would arrive over a distant target with only 2000 lbs of bombs... because they had to carry so much fuel to get to the target that the trip could take 18 hours to get there and back, leave at dawn and return after dark. This is where the "Tokyo" tanks would be put to use. All in all, the Lanc and B-17 when compared in all categories had close statistics and specifications. There was no real tactical or strategic advantage that either airplane held over the other. By the way, to say (mentioned by someone in this same forum) that the B-29 could "carry about the same" as a Lancaster borders upon ludicrous. The B-29 excelled in every category over the Lanc, as well as just about everything else that flew in WW-II and that is an absolute fact. Higher ceiling, climb rate vs payload, armament (just about everything else that carried bombs had better defensive armament than the Lanc, ESPECIALLY the B-17), cruise speed and top speed, as well as mission endurance of the B-29 was all considerably better than the Lanc. Last note: The B-29, using external bomb shackle mounts ala the B-17 and other US bombers of the period, was capable of carrying (if need be) TWO each 22,000 lb Grand Slam bombs... "about the same" as two AVRO Lancs. This tactic was considered, and tested, during War Department discussions on whether or not to deploy B-29s in the ETO, but the plan was cancelled when it was determined that the B-17 would be adequate as-is for the 8th AF's efforts against German targets. Thus, the B-29s went to the Pacific to reinforce (replace?) the B-24s which lacked the range to strike mainland Japan from US-held airfields. ;-)

[@bodleyfludes7958]

Interested to see a rare shot of a Junkers 86P in flight at 0.39. Thanks.

[@steffenschiller3189]

It is strange that the relatively obscure Baltimore is featured but the immensely important DH.98 Mosquito is not.

[@drstevenrey]

That is probably because it was featured in the fighter section, which it was, not a bomber.

[@steffenschiller3189]

@@drstevenrey The Mosquito was extensively used as a bomber, because it was designed as a bomber and later also used as a fighter.

[@ProperLogicalDebate]

I would suspect that those German bombers that started their designs out of commercial passenger planes did so to get as much as possible without crossing the limitations of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the Great War. Same with glider training.

[@28ebdh3udnav]

Its not suspected, Goring would always say that in private. Same applied to the a Me 109 as a "Sports" craft.

[@getredytagetredy]

That landing @ 21:00, was a excellent, wheels 1 ft off the ground...

[@psychiatry-is-eugenics]

getredytagetredy - might be an airshow film ; not ww2 ?

[@KensAeroden]

That is the B-25 "Photo Fanny" which can still be seen operating by the Planes of Fame air museum in Chino, California U.S.A.

[@garymcaleer6112]

Great overview. Good post.

[@FPVREVIEWS]

"it used the skipping drum to breach the Damn walls". LOL

[@allandavis8201]

FPVREVIEWS, yeah a bit farcical and simplistic that one, especially as the narration was British in origin. Lol.

[@banjoboy1941]

The skipping drum bombs were simply an oil drum filled with explosives. They would drop them a good distance from the dam and the drum would skip over the water until it hit the dam. Kaboom.

[@andyb.1026]

@@banjoboy1941 a touch simplistic old Son ~ speed, Height. precise distance, drum RPM, barometric pressure fuse etc ~ and of course a dollop of Luck

[@MauriatOttolink]

@@allandavis8201 Of course ..nothing that wasn't American ever happened. Wearing a bit thin now, that one!

[@josephking6515]

@@banjoboy1941 Wrong. They would bounce/skip across the water with a backspin so when the hit the wall they would descend/sink to a predetermined depth and than *KABOOM* . Apologies if I seem pedantic.

[@modurhead]

old school, its great

[@allandavis8201]

What is the matter with some of you comment contributors, WWII was fought by many nations, all of whom brought different attributes and equipment to the table of conflict. Why can’t you just accept that no one nation won, or lost, it was all allied effort. It really pisses me of when a documentary about aircraft becomes a platform for the armchair warriors from all sides. Thanks for an interesting and informative video. 👍. One minor flaw, I wish the makers of this film had made it a bit longer, and just a little more information on each aircraft, still a good film though. I have two favourite bombers of WWII, the Lancaster and the B-17 “fortress “ both aircraft performed remarkable and vital roles during the war, thank you to the crews and airmen and women who built, flew, maintained and directed these beautiful aircraft.

[@stephenhowlett6345]

The old propellor aircraft had a living soul , they were just beautiful, the jets are just machines and have no personality whereas the propellered aircraft were alive.

[@allandavis8201]

Stephen Howlett you are right, propeller driven aircraft do seem to have a personality, a beating heart that moulds pilot and aircraft into one cohesive team. But their are,in my opinion, jet aircraft that are the same, for instance, the Vulcan, sleek and menacing, the F4 Phantom, big and all muscle and power, the Rafael, sleek beyond belief a French Ferrari, the A-10 “Hog” not much to look at but the guys on the ground were so reassured by it presence and distinctive sound. I think I could go on and on, but I won’t as it is just my opinion.

[@arodrigues2843]

@@allandavis8201 I think the mistique is the same. I was a professional aviator for 42 years, flying both, and all have their soul.. BTW, the correct name of the French A/C, it's "RAFALE", (meaning a gust of wind, or a burst of machine-gun automatic fire).

[@kenbobca]

Great video, Thank you.

[@fidziek]

1:53 - poor little upper gunner... :-DDDDDDDD

[@sleeperawake9818]

saw your comment, went to 1:53 - WOW, that guy had the worst job of the Air Force! I hope he had warm coat!

[@tomhernonjr]

Mariusz Fidzinski american industry did

[@mariuszfidzinski7474]

oh, thank you for so detailed tech specs of JU-88... (well - I think that if you gave some details for one aircraft, you could be so kind and give us the same details for all presented machines, for comparison, for convenience of your viewers...)

[@4FYTfa8EjYHNXjChe8xs7xmC5pNEtz]

no

[@anthonyellsmore4532]

Maybe you should do it

[@laszlogman2545]

Great Video! Please send MORE!!

[@rogerpattube]

The foreign language audio track has an Englishman speaking Italian with a strong English accent and Japanese with an English accent.

[@robertbania232]

Junkers 86 was very cool looking bomber....

[@pascalchauvet7625]

4.50 this is a Do217 with BMW801 radials, no Do17

[@awol354]

Didn't Rudel go in the Stuka? And highest decorated Luftwaffe pilot?

[@bodleyfludes7958]

Re the 18:28 comment - some might argue the Mitsubishi Ki-67 was the best Japanese bomber of the war.

[@rodparsons6719]

Poor understanding perpetuates the same old misinformation. The Lancaster and the B17 are both capable of lifting about the same weight and carrying it about the same distance. But they differ in being designed to serve different strategies for delivering their loads and their payload capacity is sub-divided in differing proportions in the service of these operational differences. The Lancaster operating at night carried less weight in defensive armament but with its much larger bomb bay, could deliver a larger internal bomb load, but bomb load can limit the weight of fuel which can be carried. The B17 was conceived to fight its way to a target at high altitude in daylight and having a smaller bomb bay, carrying more weight in defensive armament, with a lighter bomb load more weight could be allocated to carrying fuel, permitting longer range. The only place I have seen this simple truth acknowledged on You Tube is in a recent topic in Greg's Airplanes & Automobiles.

[@notwocdivad]

FYI the normal bomb load for the Lancaster day or night to Berlin was 5,400lb For the B17 4,200lb that is from official reports, As that is the whole point of bombers i would say that is the most relevant point irrespective of whether it be day or night or what self defence the aircraft is designed to carry?

[@-few-fernando11]

notwocdivad did you saw gregs video? I would recomend you to do so. His whole channel Is a hidden gem Cheers

[@josephking6515]

The 2 engine, 2 crew Mosquito bomber could carry a 4,000lb cookie to Berlin at twice the speed of a B-17. The DH-98 makes the B-17 look obsolete.

[@anthonyellsmore4532]

You need a hobby ha ha

[@johnprice7303]

No mention of the Mosquito?

[@andyb.1026]

where is the Mossie ??

[@notwocdivad]

@@andyb.1026 Exactly, NO mention of the fastest, most versatile twin engine plane of WW2 Obviously an American made programme as half the British planes mentioned were American. The one redeeming comment came with the Lancaster, bomb load 14,000 lb, up to 10 tons, the B17 4000lb The Mosquito could carry that much!!!

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

Mosquito not a bomber. Fighter-bomber......B29 could pick up a Mosquito and a grand slam bomb and fly them 2000 miles. Look up "B29 carrying TWO grand slam bombs"..

[@MrLordRay1]

.. Beaufighter??

[@notwocdivad]

@@coreyandnathanielchartier3749 i think the post was mosquito could carry the same payload as a B17G FLYING FORTRESS The B29 was never mentioned, not by me anyway?

[@robbiemify]

Why no mention of the Wellington ???

[@jayde1708]

9.45

[@Theogenerang]

These videos always talk about maximum speeds. These aircraft rarely approached those speeds unless in a dive. Long range cruise speed is a far better measure of capability because that relates to range.

[@anthonyellsmore4532]

Who cares

[@rickautry2759]

I always thought that turrets on a small aircraft were a 1930's thing, and weren't worth the extra weight that could've gone into arms & armor. Putting one on the Avenger at so late a date sounds like a complete waste. Anybody else notice the resemblance of the British bombers to a double - decker bus?

[@johnturner561]

very succesful double decker buses lol

[@chopchop7938]

@@johnturner561 With American high octane gas and materials. American high octane gas is what made the Merlin great. The often badmouthing about the American's Allison is because of ignorance and stupidity. The Allison was significantly faster than the spitfire in low to medium altitudes. It was significantly better than the Merlin, had half of the moving internals parts and was better engineered. The American government controlled things like superchargers, tires and consequential the Allison only received a single stage blower. The P-38 suffered greatly because of this as well . The German's had to get by on 87-89 octane gas. The German's had an excellent blower set-up on the 109. The American's made 100-130-150 octane gas available to the British. Without it the British pilots would have been decimated.

[@johnturner561]

@@chopchop7938 i dont remember saying anything about the merlins or high octane fuel i only refered to the british bomber being like a double decker bus

[@allandavis8201]

Chop Chop as usual the Americans save the day and won the war, all on their own, wow you are so conceited and arrogant, WWII was won by the combined efforts of many nations all of them bringing different things to the war. Oh and by the way, the Merlin engine was being used long before the war started and was not poorly engineered, in fact it was precision made by Rolls Royce, the engines used by American aircraft were made under license by Packard, so not actually a British problem if they were poorly made, that was an American failure. It’s a shame people like you come out whenever anything you don’t like being said or pointed out against America occurs, so sad. And just to be clear, the Spitfire is an aircraft, the Allison is an engine, so the Allison can’t be faster than a Spitfire. Ok!!!!!!

[@somethingelse4878]

6:06 I rewound that, OMG I suppose they were safe

[@ericbrammer2245]

The Stuka owes All of it's design elements (except the Siren) to the Curtiss Shrike of 1934.

[@4FYTfa8EjYHNXjChe8xs7xmC5pNEtz]

No it doesn't. LOL!!

[@ericbrammer2245]

@@4FYTfa8EjYHNXjChe8xs7xmC5pNEtz Take a second look; Solid landing gear, Slotted aft flaps, Inverted Gull-wing, Inline V-engine, rear gunner in the same 'glasshouse', Center bomb on a 'sling-arm'... You are either blind, or think Junkers came up with the 87 a year-and-half later, by, um "chance"? They sure didn't copy the Biplane 'Helldiver' here...

[@ralphbernhard1757]

At 4:43 minutes. "The Do 17Z had a deep cabin...." while the footage shows a Do 217 E. Oh bother....

[@billcallahan9303]

Saw Martin Caiden's Auntie Ju in Paris CDG in '89.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

At 4:42 mins ".The Do 17 Z ..." is in fact a Do 217 E. The narrative does not match up to the video footage...

[@allandavis8201]

Ralph Bernhard they make on little mistake and the armchair warriors come out to troll.

[@VincentNajger1]

So many brainless comments. How can you guys not see that this is a documentary from about 25 years ago and not made by a KZbin content creator?

[@zdzichus.3264]

so, the Mosquito WAS NOT THE ONLY PLANE in WW2 MADE OF WOOD - ask Italians... and 5:25 - what exactly was DO-217 bomb load? I can't hear? Louder, pls... they've been produced up till 1943? Anti-Ship Missile platform? Oh, this is really interesting...

[@mtsenskmtsensk5113]

Zdzichu S. Of course it wasn't, ask the Russians, LAGG, YAK, Polikarpov, and early MIGs, all were wooden to a large extent but you must realise that most programmes , histories, books all have an agenda to make something, the biggest, the first or the unique, but of course all countries try similar things if they can afford to. It is an endearingly childish concept on how to impress.

[@philgiglio9656]

Germany tried as well, their adhesives technology wasn't up to snuff.

[@allandavis8201]

Correct, many countries built or tried to build wooden aircraft, the Mosquito was not even the only wooden aircraft in the RAF, the Hurricane an Wellington both had partial sections made of wood. Can I ask, what is your problem with the narration? I might be being dumb but I didn’t catch anything wrong with it.

[@stephendurant4210]

@@philgiglio9656 .................... Mm/m

[@SkyLightsUFOs]

....excellent documentary...

[@tomasinacovell4293]

That narrator with the German accent has got to be Gen. Johannes "Macky" Steinhoff?

[@johnvaleanbaily4859]

No mosquito ?!

[@pippiperade4030]

Major omission..

[@bartfoster1311]

I believe they covered it in the fighter episode

[@johnvaleanbaily4859]

@@bartfoster1311 But I believe the Mosquito bomber variant could carry 4,000lb... nearly as much as the Fortress... should have been included.

[@warplanner8852]

Some of us are tired of the INCESSANT praising of that over-rated flying piano crate. Give it a rest, will ya?

[@johnvaleanbaily4859]

@@warplanner8852 Fuck off you POS

[@eisenhertz]

not a word about the Focke-Wulf 200 !

[@whtalt92]

And rightly so :P It's main role was anti-shipping and recon because it was too weak (being a converted airliner/mail plane). Operational losses where it 'broke it's back' were frequent.

[@andrewgraham7659]

You left out the Tallboy, as far as i can see.

[@r2gelfand]

Wasn't Tallboy a bomb?

[@4FYTfa8EjYHNXjChe8xs7xmC5pNEtz]

What have you become?

[@stephenspreckley8219]

I think "tail end charlie" was the name if referring to the rear gunner. Tallboy was a bloody big bomb.

[@markpaul8178]

What happened 2 these programs on TV?excellent documentation.

[@irvan36mm]

Mark Paul They and other “educational” documentaries got replaced with reality garbage pickers, pawn shop owners and people catching animals bare handed in the wild- for ratings. I guess history isn’t entertaining enough?

[@allandavis8201]

There are a lot of reasons why the Axis powers lost WWII, not least because Goering and Hitler didn’t listen to their aircrew and what they needed to win in the air, they had a huge quantity of aircraft but the quality wasn’t, they had very skilled and combat experienced aircrew, but, luckily, for the allies they just didn’t have the types of aircraft they wanted and needed. Thanks for sharing this interesting and informative film 🎥😀👍🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[@fidziek]

ACHTUNG ACHTUNG: UWAGA! WNIMANJE: 1:13 "All four (..) German bombers begin their life as civil passenger transport (..) /very well/... then, next: JU-52(...) - UNLIKE the other German bombers - it was a GENUINE PASSENGER AIRCRAFT... OK, thank you, that's all for today - class -dismiss!

[@drstevenrey]

Good stuff. On a beauty scale, I might add my opinion. Ugly to barf level: Japanese. Beautiful as Daylight: Italian. All others are on the 'OK' level. B-25 was nice, but B-26 was prettier.

[@paulchandler9646]

The B-24 could not get off the ground with a Lancaster bomb load so i fail to see how it was a tide turner of WW2.

[@molanlabexm15]

It was the most produced American bomber of WW2.

[@bf945]

How many German U-Boats did the Lancasters sink? Given how close Germany came to starving Britain into submission in the Battle of the Atlantic, how did the Lancaster help?

[@whtalt92]

@@bf945 The real figures suggest otherwise. Still, it makes for good flag-waving material so that myth persists.

[@starsailor49]

I would offer the Mosquito as the best British bomber of the war.

[@randyschaff8939]

Why did the Mitchell kill so many pilots are n the beginning?

[@petegeiger8871]

In the title...What does XviD mean????

[@fidziek]

17:17 ++ "(...) and in which the surrender parties would go to Iwo-Jima." ,- Eee... What the heck does it mean??? What!? Sorry, governor... it's a mumbling..

[@Mishn0]

It is a grammatically correct phrase, if a little stodgy. Bettys which were painted white with green crosses for wing and fuselage markings flew Japanese officers to Iwo Jima for surrender negotiations. Well, not much negotiating since we insisted on unconditional surrender.

[@anthonyellsmore4532]

You should lay of the crack pipe before you comment

[@deltavee2]

32:02 Dude has his American flag on the wrong arm. The stars always lead.

[@TheTorakka]

Army Regulation 670-1 American flag patch is to be worn right or left shoulder so that the star field faces forward or to the flags own right. Not wrong arm depending on decade or uniform type, class, section of the time in question. Too many people are working on problem that does not exist. (A real govern-mental produce) :p

[@zdzichus.3264]

12:29 - Against The Luftwaffe? Really? :-) 13:20 - the next version was larger and got more airspeed, but it was inadequate... ,- So why even mention 12:29 bullshit?

[@OldMusicFan83]

JU52 looks a lot like an old Ford Trimotor.

[@fookdatchit4245]

I always fast forward the American planes

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

Nice!!!

[@mattosullivan9687]

They called it the "flying lighter" need new keyboard

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

I get so damned tired of all these "documentaries" stating that the B-17 could carry 4,000 pounds of bombs. It could carry 17,600 pounds. It carried 4,000 on its longest range fully armed (13- 50 caliber machine guns) missions.

[@peer7727]

No, you're wrong. 4,000 pounds were its usual load, it could take 8,000 pounds on shorter missions.

[@Mishn0]

@@peer7727 It could carry 17,000 if some of it was external. The B-17's payload was actually the same as the Lancaster and it could carry it higher.

[@eaglebeak1924]

@@Mishn0 If your aunty had balls she could be your uncle. The B-17s normal load over Germany was 4000 pounds, the same as a Mosquito, risking the lives of ten men as opposed to two. Could and did are very different!

[@6h471]

It had a max internal bomb load of 9600 lbs depending on type of bombs carried at a combat radius of a bit over 800 miles with full armament. That's a short range mission, as London to Berlin is 579 miles by air.

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

@Gary Tarr Average miss of bomb load for B17: 245 yards. Lancaster: 1243 yards. Most British bombers dropped early or blindly and ran for Olde England!

[@zad79snafu67]

WOTDAF**!!! U GUYS FAST FORWARD TO 6:02 min.. LOOK AT THAT EARLY VERSION JU-86 BELLY/VENTRAL GUN POSITION IN AN OPEN BASKET DESIGN!! THAT IS STRAIGHT UP HOLY SHIT!! LIKE "A CHICKEN IN A BUCKET NEST!!' LOOKING AT IT GAVE ME COLD CHILLS!! JUST LOOK AT THAT SUCKER SHAKING WHEN IT LOWERS DOWN!! I DONT THINK IT CAN SUPPORT A PERSON LET ALONE COMPLETE WITH MACHINE GUN AND AMMO!! IMAGINE HAD TO SIT IN THAT PUNY THING IN 20-30 THOUSAND FEET WHILE EXCHANGING GUN FIRE WITH ENEMY FIGHTERS!! I WILL NEVER SIT IN THAT THING.. NOT A CHANCE IN HELL!! THEY NEED TO PUT A GUN ON MY HEAD. LOL..

[@robertbania6546]

Very beautiful Italian planes but made out of wood and much much too slow ....

[@allandavis8201]

Robert Bania, agreed, but as the British proved with the mosquito, wooden planes can be both fast and effective, and other British aircraft were partially made of wood.

[@IanMellows]

be proud America first and only country to unleash atomic weapons upon civilians.. also re WW2 Americans only operated from UK air bases . America never suffered bombing of of its civilians airfields and cities only reacted to the war after it got smacked at Peal Harbor when Hitler declared war on America Please o not tell the Polish, French or any occupied European country that "America won the war"

[@andyb.1026]

@Old Guy's Place Mein frieund Your Notion of History is a tad warped.. Hitler never declared War on USA, the last thing Nazi Germany wanted was the USA in the War ~ due to its Manufacturing capacity ~ No Worries about its sub-standard Military.

[@stevennaylor4053]

Do you actually think Arthur Harris wouldn't have used an A bomb if available to him? Also Germany and Japan were actively pursuing their own A bomb programs, we got there first.

[@mikelurrutia3029]

@@stevennaylor4053 Alemania nunca comenzó un programa de bomba atómica. Lo descartaron como una inversión inútil. a lo maximo que llegaron fue ha hacer una pila experimental.

[@matovicmmilan]

@@stevennaylor4053 Several of the so called "Allies" and of the Axis possessed other types of weapons capable of causing enormous casualties(especially civilian) but didn't use them even against the enemy armed forces let alone civilians(in order to force the enemy to surrender)???!!!

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

No, the British dropped a-bombs on native Australians shortly after the war. They're still dying today from this.

[@kolloduke3341]

Shes got a tank symbol on her nose so why cant you in this day and age fabricate some cannon for her ? NO weight is not an issue you can make them out of light weight material therefore no added weight stress on wings !WELL?

[@ajknaup3530]

The JU88 destroyed more allied bombers than all other German fighters combined? What accounts for this lopsided statistic?

[@Mishn0]

NIGHT fighters

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

Did you know the B17 destroyed more Axis fighters than all Allied fighters combined? Ref: "Famous Bombers of The Second World War". William Green. British book.

[@fidziek]

Betty bomber - ONLY 266 m/h, only 2600 built... pls compare it to any other airplane of the WW2... total waste... even obsolete Polish fighters of Sept 1939 were faster... and, btw - the long range, in circumstances mentioned above, only give your enemy more time to remove you from the sky... Total failure.

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

Betty bomber wreaked havoc in the Pacific. Very stable, long range bomb platform. Very vulnerable to enemy action. What's your beef with that?

[@vanmust]

are you serious? Betty bombers wiped out british naval presence in the Pacific leaving only the us as a major force

[@bf945]

Total failure? Betty bombers were the scourge of American ships in the Pacific. Maybe you should learn a thing or two before making stupid comments.

[@markgranger9150]

Marlusz Fidzinski WRONG the farther the Luftwaffe retreated the less effective they were. Bombers do not travel alone if the Germans would have engaged the allies before crossing .The channel the fighters would have to drop extra fuel tanks. Then they would not have been able to run wild on German targets of opportunity

[@gavinholmes2781]

Lowest loss rate.... Mosquito

[@stephenarling1667]

Speed as Armor

[@josephking6515]

The *first* stealth bomber.

[@startaxi562]

Nununu

[@TJTruth]

B17 could carry almost 20,000 Lbs. It just could not fly all the way to Germany It could how ever carry 8,000Lbs to Germany. Not bad for a Plane developed in 1934. Not sure where he got 4,000Lbs from.

[@tonyhammes5848]

B

[@carlosteran8114]

.

[@RobertHearn-hu2br]

Remember the English dropped bombs on Berlin before Germany dropped bombs on London. Why do you English twist and lie about history?

[@markgranger9150]

Robert Herin WRONG the Luftwaffe bombed London first it was an accident. Even so the Germans started the war of they did not want to be bombed they should not have started a war

[@randyschaff8939]

The truth be known actually Britain and France declared war when Germany invaded Poland. From Sept. 1939 to May 1940 essentially was the phony war or Sitzkrieg. Then the invasion of France May 1940. Yes one German bomber got lost and jettisoned it’s bombs on London. The crew was summoned to Berlin to explain themselves. Hitler had expressly forbidden air attacks on London. He was hoping against hope not to have to fight the West because he wanted to throw the entire Armed Forces of Germany against Soviet Russia the real enemy.