Nazi Germany's Fatal Mistakes | Luftwaffe's Jet Fighters | Full Documentary

[@Dronescapes]

Join this channel ➤ kzbin.info/door/TTqBgYdkmFogITlPDM0M4Ajoin Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions ➤ www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes ➤ IG: instagram.com/dronescapesvideos/ ➤ TWITTER (X): tinyurl.com/m86k2ypf

[@johntrottier1162]

It is a mistake we see repeated, time after time, from the days of the Persians and Romans to the present day. Bad Generals or Admirals can cost you a battle. But NOTHING can screw up a war better than a group of politicians and bureaucrats.

[@SAHBfan]

Spot on - and, of course, they are the ones who start them in the first place...

[@youtubesketches110]

​@@SAHBfan, indeed. Politicians find a scapegoat or an enemy to get elected.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@SAHBfan The bankers started both world wars.

[@thatguy22441]

To err human, but to really screw things up you need politicians and generals (politicians in uniform).

[@PepeCoinMania]

😂but hitler did not lose the war because of that but he lack oil

[@JosephRodriguez-gh6hi]

Capt. Brown is the most versatile pilot of all time, having flown more types of aircraft than any other person.

[@thanksfernuthin]

They need to make a movie about this man's extraordinary life.

[@SeniorDrummer]

Definitely my vote for world’s most interesting person ! His war record, his test flights including some of the world’s most famous aircraft .

[@derekheeps1244]

Yes , 'Winkle' was an amazing man , and absolutely on the ball with his final comment at the end of this video . But then , Scotsmen are always right .

[@at1970]

As general galland said. He wanted to only produce jets and fw190s. The jets to attack the allied bombers and 190s to guard their bases during takeoffs and landings.

[@EricHamm]

Doesn't matter what you can make if you can't manufacture en mass. DE could of had nuclear bombers, but if they can't make enough bombs to destroy the entire US, then they were always gonna lose. Just watch ww2 by numbers.

[@asullivan4047]

As always the disillusioned fuhrer 😈 Over ruled another diligent/experienced General. Causing a faster defeat for Germany.

[@Nonukes2024]

V-1. Replacement.....

[@johnnewman2453]

​@@Nonukes2024😊

[@johnnewman2453]

Great net

[@GlennHa]

When I was in engineering school we got a lecture by a visiting Sir Frank Whittle, probably in 1974. What an interesting man. He had been a fighter pilot so knew that fast throttle response was necessary for a jet fighter aircraft. I asked a question during Q&A if, after the war, they made use of German jet engine technology. His reply was "Absolutely not! They had nothing we could use." My Dad was in the 8th AF (2nd Air Division, in B-24's) and actually saw the Me-262 flying. I went to one of his 2AD reunions and the men were talking about the Me-262. One variant had a 50mm cannon mounted in the nose and could stand off, out of 50 caliber range, lob shells into the bomber formations, and shoot down B-24's. "How helpless we were against them" was one of the comments. Sadly most of the men are now gone to the great reunion in the sky.

[@quewalabear8575]

Actually, your dad wasn't helpless at all against Me 262's armed with 50mm canon: Because, aside from video games, no planes (including B-24's) EVER got shot down by an Me262 armed with a 50mm. Never ceases to amaze me the distortions that are promulgated about WWII weapons.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

its also stated that he picked the wrong type of jet & should have gone for axial at the start. whittle said that he believed the raf were incapable of servicing such an engine so he made the centrifugal flow type as it was simpler.

[@GlennHa]

I'm quoting from people who WERE THERE getting shot at by Me-262's armed with 50mm cannon....seeing some of the aircraft in their bomb group get shot down. Not from a video game.@@quewalabear8575

[@walterrudich2175]

Actually, the Me 262 was equipped with four 30 mm Rheinmetall Borsig Cannons.

[@GlennHa]

Check out the Me-262 1a/U4 Kanonenvogel, also called the Pulkzerstorer. @@walterrudich2175

[@allanb52]

It was the mistake of the British, after Frank Whittle invented the Jet engine in 1928 and the air ministry completely ignored him for 10 years. "Lions led by donkeys" was a WW1 phrase that never lost it's poiniancy even today.

[@DarkFenix2k5]

It's a strange thing how in some way Britain was on the absolute bleeding edge of technological innovation and forward thinking, yet in other areas was crippled by obstinate conservatism.

[@allanb52]

@@DarkFenix2k5 You think it is conservatism. I think the problem is the oligarchy.

[@DarkFenix2k5]

@@allanb52 The UK has literally never been an oligarchy. Unless you're so loose with the term that it ceases to have all meaning, because then every government is an oligarchy.

[@phoenix211245]

The problem was that the UK already had an air force, and in peacetime you don't have a lot of budget to experiment. Remember, for every successful experimental tech, there are at least 10 failures, history just tends not to record them. Plus, the materials science only really got caught up to the demands of such an engine at the mid/end of 1930's, just before the war. So you either don't have the money to experiment, or you need a lot of something you know works, even if it is worse than a theoretical new something. Germany had an enormous advantage in the Versailles treaty in that when they got the funding and permission to, they built their air force from scratch.

[@allanb52]

@@phoenix211245 After WW1 Germany had nothing, they were bankrupt and population starving, until Hitler put his people to work with little more than shovels in 1933. With regards to materials, that may have been the case to some extent, though metallurgy tends to meet needs as they become necessary, but more likely the stupid civil servants. Plus there was a commercial aspect to this. Then look at the first powered flight which was seen in the UK in 1848, yet 50 years on it took an American to get on with it. Then they first decent airliner the Comet, way ahead of it's time, followed by the first supersonic airline in 1969. All projects that failed to get off the ground through lack of vision. I guess you need special people to get on with these things like Stevenson, Brunel and Chapman.

[@johnallen7807]

An excellent summary, no one will ever equal Capt. Brown's record in the number of aircraft types flown.

[@egay86292]

hero worship? at your age?

[@daleliske9757]

I'm a huge WWII buff and these videos really intrigue me. The luck, the mistakes that had catastrophic results, breaking codes that turned a major assault 180'. The missed opportunity of Hitler being killed in WW1, and at least 20 million people could have been saved. Is just mind blowing. Thank God for all the historical people that researched everyone they could possibly interview and get information from and about. To inform the world through the intranet, to educate. Great job to all.!

[@brightsparkey1965]

80 million died in ww2 not 20

[@rajanchandrasekar6850]

0:04 😊l😊

[@rajanchandrasekar6850]

😊0

[@rajanchandrasekar6850]

0:04 😊o😊😊😊0

[@daliborkudrna437]

Nothing is as simple as you write here. If Hitler had been killed in World War I. So there could have been even more dead people here.

[@kevinskiles2033]

There's a science fiction story of a war where one side kept building innovative weapons while the other just kept cranking out the old reliable stuff. Since it was difficult to produce the new stuff, the old weapons gradually overwhelmed the newer but fewer weapons. The story was obviously referring to WWII, where all the German rockets and jet planes were superior, but there just weren't enough of them.

[@lqr824]

I read that story. I remember that their equivalent of warp drive had the result that the spaceship didn't return quite to original size, so interchangeable parts weren't interchangeable any more. Still, it was a perfect example of a sci-fi story I'd rather the author just tell the idea for instead of actually writing it.

[@liquidmark5081]

It’s silly to claim that Germany was the only one innovating during WWII. The thing is that Germany was desperate so they carted out prototypes into combat roles while the allied forces were getting the job done so there was no real need to do that. But even then, the Allied forces made numerous innovations. Also, the reality is that Germany was NEVER going to win WWII. That wasn’t even a thing that was ever on the table as a remote possibility. And it’s a good thing that they lost.

[@MichaelHruby-r3i]

Arthur C Clark I believe

[@deanr.johansen6377]

A jet fighter that isn't reliable, and has to ease into full thrust is not superior in combat. Range is very important as well, and jet fighters had short range.

[@lqr824]

@@deanr.johansen6377 Range constrains the missions you can undertake but if all you need is interceptors, short range is fine. In the battle of Britain, the Spitfires and Hurricanes had shorter range than the 109's but it didn't matter. They needed interceptors, they had interceptors, problem solved. In fact there's not too much need for medium-range fighters at least in WWII. You either need point interception, in which case a 262 or say Bearcat, Spitfire or similar was fine, or you needed an escort or an inter-island attacker in which case almost no range was too muc range. I think the jets were pretty reliable: few moving parts. They only lasted about 10 hours but that was long enough to kill at least 10 piston fighters. Combat is nearly always done at continuous maximum thrust, so unless you're caught unawares on partial throttle, it doesn't matter that it had to ease into full throttle. Basically everything you're saying is nonsense, man. Why not go through a learning phase before commenting further.

[@gordonpeden6234]

ANYTHING with Eric 'Winkle' Brown in it is gonna' be good. Pilot, diplomat, Johnny on the spot, spoke (German) with "Fatso" Goering. Flown everything, insightful, thoughtful comments. RIP Winkle.

[@leokimvideo]

Inexperienced Hitler Youth flying the most advanced fighters of the time. Must have been exciting times

[@gaptaxi]

Got that wrong, the Hitler Youth were to be used to fly an advanced model of the V1 Rocket Bombs that were so innacurate that they made models with cockpits to kill themselves in! Obviously a lot of new pilots were ex Hitler Youth, most ME 262´s were either lost to accidents or shot up on landing.

[@johnburns4017]

Hans von Ohain, the leading German jet engineer, wrote a very comprehensive foreword in the _'Elements of Propulsion, Gas turbines and Rockets'._ In that foreword he states: _"The first patent of a turbojet engine, which was later developed and produced, was that of_ *_Frank Whittle, now Sir Frank._* _His patent was applied for in January 1930. This patent shows a multistage, axial-flow compressor followed by a radial compressor stage, a combustor, an axial-flow turbine driving the compressor, and an exhaust nozzle. Such configurations are still used today..."_ and _"From the beginning of his jet propulsion activities, Frank Whittle had been seeking means for improving the propulsive efficiency of turbojet engines. He conceived novel ideas for which he filed a patent application in 1936, which can be called a bypass engine or turbofan. To avoid a complete new design, Whittle sought an interim solution that could be merely "tacked on" to a jet engine. This configuration was later known as the aft fan. Whittle's work on fan jets or bypass engines and aft fans was way ahead of his time. It was of greatest importance for the future or turbopropulsion."_ and _"In April 1937, Whittle had his bench-test jet engine ready for the first test run. It ran excellently; however, it ran out of control because liquid fuel had collected inside the engine and started to vaporize as the engine became hot, thereby adding uncontrolled fuel quantities to the combustion process. The problem was easily overcome._ *_This first test run was the world's first run of a bench-test jet engine operating with liquid fuel."._*

[@diy.animals9361]

Its unfairness, all the world know that jets were German invention

[@marcbjorg4823]

The Me262 suffered from the rivalry between the German manufacturers. The FW190 had benefited from a early electric engine management system called Kommandogerät, this reduced the engine management for the pilot. This system would have worked wonders for the early jet engines, which tended to catch fire or flame out if the power setting was changed too rapidly. Another feature the Me262 lacked was air brakes, even so Germany had spend considerable time developing these for dive bombers. In the end, the idea of the Me262 becoming a fighter bomber, ensured that it would be ready too late.

[@texasfathead]

This is completely bulshit

[@Nemothewonderfish]

The boomber myth has been debunked

[@marcbjorg4823]

@@Nemothewonderfish , it still was a waste of time, using the Electric controls from FW and adding air brakes would have been more beneficial.

[@mirkojorgovic]

@@Nemothewonderfish Galland had heavy discussions with Chancellor about Me262; it was uncommon for politician to made such pressure against competent pilot- high officer

[@jerrybuirski2344]

Hitler had fighter-bombers on the brain. Idiot!

[@stelleratorsuprise8185]

29:00 shows an interesting prototype of the 262, it has a tail wheel. The design of the Me262 was changed later to a tricycle landing gear, together with more swept back wings an other engines. The He280 had tricycle landing gears from its beginning.

[@Outlier999]

The Gloster Meteor and the Me. 262 were set against each other in a test mock air duel after the war. The Me. 262 flew rings around the Meteor. The reason so many Me. 262s were downed in aerial combat was that there weren't enough of them and they didn't have enough fuel for the ones they had.

[@Dronescapes]

But the Me 262 had a flawed engine that lasted only a few hours before needing to be scrapped… It was so bad that nobody really cared to use it after the war. The Soviets gave at least two different German engines a chance, but quickly gave up and used Whittle’s engine in their formidable MiG15s (Meteor’s engine). Those German engines were fatally flawed, and hopelessly useless, as they had been at the end of 1944 when they were deployed. The French together with German engineers also spent years trying to make them viable, but that was pretty much a failure as well. The axial turbojets became usable in the mid 50s, but they were not German. This said, the airframe of the Me 262 was great,mbut powered by a virtually useless engine, other than a pathetic last ditch propaganda, and consider that multiple German companies had been working on those engines for 6 years after the first demo flight. They wasted enormous resources for nothing. Interestingly Von Ohain and Heinkel eventually tried to make a centrifugal turbojet, but their effort went nowhere. They probably realized, too late, that their axial turbojet was fatally flawed. Given that Von Ohain had full access to Whittle’s work since the mid 30s, it should have been quite easy to just copy.

[@MrVolvobloke]

@@Dronescapes Just doing some number crunching for fun and perspective. . Taking the service life and claims at face value, the 262 destroyed an average of 1.6 allied aircraft a day from it's operational inception to surrender. The US airforce alone lost over 20,000 aircraft in WW2 just from non combat accidents. Thanks for making this video it's a refreshing change to see another view than simply another 'wonder weapon' .

[@Dronescapes]

@MrVolvoBloke You mean the handful of Me 262 that flew? It’s like asking 100 people who they vote for and calling that a proper poll. Probably, if they had numbers in the 1,000s, or the 10,000s they would have been grounded for lack of engines, or pilots that perished during the infamous flame-out of the Jumo. Just kidding of course.

[@ardeladimwit]

​@@Dronescapes Me-262 (S-92) were built by Avia and flew in Czechoslovak Air Force until 1951. 2 are in Kbely Air Museum here in Prague. think they have Walter engines ( and Walter M601 engine is now part of GE). Naturally, along came Mig-15 which was also built in TSCH

[@Outlier999]

@@Dronescapes Granted, but with time it would have been fixed or replaced. Thanks to Hitler and Goering, Germany did not have that time. The Mustang had a poor engine at the beginning too. In addition the Allies developed tactics to shoot them down as they were taking off or landing.

[@cvz8849]

The ME 262 shot down 750 enemy planes in just over 1 year. Incredible

[@MrVolvobloke]

Most sources seem to suggest it was somewhere between 300-450. Which works out at around 0.9 -1.6 262 'kills' a day. To put this into some sort of perspective The US airforce alone lost 13 aircraft a day just in non combat accidents.

[@cvz8849]

@@MrVolvobloke I disagree, that number of 750 kills is solid. Mind you most pilots in the Schwab were aces or veteran pilots with much more experience than most german pilots. Similar to putting Michael Schumacher in a Ferrari, absolutely deadly for the enemy

[@deanr.johansen6377]

A prominent Royal Navy test pilot, Captain Eric Brown, chief naval test pilot and commanding officer of the Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Royal Aircraft Establishment, who tested the Me 262 noted that: This was a Blitzkrieg aircraft. You whack in at your bomber. It was never meant to be a dogfighter, it was meant to be a destroyer of bombers... The great problem with it was it did not have dive brakes. For example, if you want to fight and destroy a B-17, you come in on a dive. The 30mm cannon were not so accurate beyond 600 metres [660 yd; 2,000 ft]. So you normally came in at 600 yards [550 m; 1,800 ft] and would open fire on your B-17. And your closing speed was still high and since you had to break away at 200 metres [220 yd; 660 ft] to avoid a collision, you only had two seconds firing time. Now, in two seconds, you can't sight. You can fire randomly and hope for the best. If you want to sight and fire, you need to double that time to four seconds. And with dive brakes, you could have done that.[78]

[@littlebritain64]

Maybe I am wrong but is it true that Hitler wanted at any cost to use the Me-262 as a bomber instead as a fighter?

[@BrianRPaterson]

That was Adolf all over. I remember a documentary saying he wanted the Me-262 to be a fighter-bomber so it could provide troops with close air support. That slowed things down by a couple of years. He was also against the Sturmgewehr battle rifle (too ugly I think) and ordered that it not be produced. The army went around him on that one. I believe he changed his mind after hearing how effective the weapon was on the Eastern Front.

[@gort8203]

There was a period where Hitler wanted the plane produced as a fighter-bomber so that it could help repel the allied invasion of France that was to come, was was seen as the existential threat. Allied air superiority would make attacking the beaches with slower aircraft quite hazardous. Messerschmitt had already designed bomb racks for the airplane so Hitler didn't really interfere with the design as much as people think. He just set the priority for the version to be produced. Later he rescinded that priority and directed the plane be produced as a fighter to intercept allied bombers.

[@jarigustafsson7620]

yes, the conversion to carry bombs delayed even more the development.

[@GreenHoleSun]

There were no " fatal mistakes": german jet fighters suffered from the fact they were essentially prototypes not ready for battles (enployed for desperation) and also because of the lack of raw materials, appropriate fuels and, at the end, industries. And still the messersmith me 262 is an astonishing fighter.

[@Dronescapes]

Those over engineered German engines had problems beyond materials, so much that even the Soviets, post war, discarded them in favor of Rolls Royce/Whittle centrifugal turbojets for the MiG15s. The allies had nothing to learn from those axial turbojets either. On the other hand, the Me 262 itself was quite a good aircraft, minus the engine.

[@GreenHoleSun]

@@Dronescapes well, you know, in my humble opinion the over engineering and all the compromises in the making was in most cases dued to the lack of the appropriate materials, and anyway the development of anything passes through a process of trial and errors...prototypes are not intended to be really employed, their purposes is to find the right path by discarding what does not work and develop what actually works.

[@Dronescapes]

@@GreenHoleSun agreed, but another fatal error was to pursue the axial turbojet, which Whittle being obviously more savvy, bypassed in his project a decade earlier. He understood that an axial turbojet would have taken ages to work properly, so his centrifugal turbojet would have been the ideal solution. If they didn’t delay, and possibly sabotaged his work for five years or more, Britain would have had the perfect turbojet for that time at the beginning of the war. Ironically the person that sabotaged, and ridiculed his work, Mr. Griffith, was the one that wrote a famous paper on axial compressors (conflict of interest perhaps?). Even more ironically Von Ohain and Heinkel, in a last ditch effort, tried to eventually make a centrifugal turbojet. As they had access all along to Whittle’s early work,m you would think they would have succeeded, but their efforts went nowhere. Pursuing the axial turbojet at the time was a gross mistake since the start, materials aside. As you may know Britain also worked on axial turbojets, but the British government issued a halt on R&D, which also included, just for a change, Whittle’s work. The decision was mainly strategic, and when it comes to axial engines, it was the right one. Considering that Germany had at least 3 companies working on the turbojet, therefore a massive effort, boiling it down to materials is in my opinion quite simplistic

[@Hell-On-Wheels]

​@@DronescapesNonsense. The Me 262 Prototypes with jumo 004a and higher grade metals work really great during the 100 hour tests. But they had severe shortage of high-temperature metals so they had to use ordinary steel coated with aluminium alloys and such in the jumo 004b for mass production. Even with poor metals these engines lasted 25 hours or more with an experienced pilot. And dont forget the shortage of higher quality fuels and lubricants in these final days of the war.

[@AlexMarciniszyn-y1k]

Look at the Arado Ar-234, the world's first jet bomber. It started with two engines of the same type used on the Me 262. Later models were upgraded to four engines. @@Hell-On-Wheels

[@bokidusanic7084]

Capt. Eric Brown shares some amazing insight

[@Dronescapes]

As always. Amazing test pilot!

[@gw7624]

Excellent video, and really nice to see a realistic appraisal of German jet development.

[@Dronescapes]

Glad you liked it!

[@stephenjacks8196]

Me 262 engines were 10 flight hours between overhaul. Germans were short of Nickel metal, priority to tanks, so Jets suffered.

[@paullakowski2509]

yes and no ; THe engine could last 50 hours with several Xrays examination replacing some of the mild steel hollow turbines, but that was hopeless in a collapsing war economy of 1944/45. BTW it was nickel chrome alloys which allowed the Jumo 004A to get 80-100 hours bench test. While this was hopeless for germany by 1944/45 they were wasting thousands of tons of such alloys on thousands of bunkers with armored MG LOOPHOLEs and armored doors that dotted occupied Europe on the early 1940s.

[@billballbuster7186]

It was projected that the engine life would be 30-50 hours, but in practice it was as low as 10 hours. Over 1,430 Me-262 were built, of these only about 70 were in flying condition at one time. The engines could only be rebuilt at the Magdeburg facility due to the complexity.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

So they invented the interior air cooling , every modern jet engine is using!

[@scrumpydrinker]

@@michaelpielorz9283 yes, and at that stage of the war it was a complication that they really did not need. Also it would have made very little difference as steel isn’t at all good at elevated temperatures, as found in the turbine section of a jet engine.

[@stephenjacks8196]

@@paullakowski2509 the Gloster Meteor used Nickel-Aluminum alloy for high temperature use. All steel softens above 800C. Germans used hollow (cooled) "ceramic" Turbine blades. Rem Nazi synthetic oil could run in jets but it corroded engines. AV gas was in short supply.

[@AjitMD]

None of systems of the Me-262 were optimized. The engine. Ended to be refined for longer life, performance, efficiency. The 30mm cannon were slow firing, low velocity with limited range. The R4M rockets had the same problem. Had to get within range of allied bomber guns. Not enough numbers. May be if developed in peacetime in secrecy.

[@jonathanstein1783]

The modern built versions of the ME 262 have used a couple of engines, the CJ 610 being one, i believe.

[@robertmiller2173]

Thanks, I have learnt something today; thank you again. I think Heinkel got blamed for the relatively poor reliability of the He-177 such a seriously needed aircraft in the Luftwaffe; over 1,000 were made and their performance was amazing but their reliability was shocking.

[@Athrun82]

They complained while conveniently ignoring the fact they wanted to give a tactical bomber dive bombing capabilities...

[@robertmiller2173]

Its amazing that the dim wits didn't turn it into a Night Fighter as well! A Bomber designed by a committee ha ha.@@Athrun82

[@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188]

An American Officer, collecting advances German weapons after the war, got told that a skilled German Crew could change the engine of a 262, even in a field, in half an hour!! So the short lifespan was only a problem if unable to find the spares.

[@Dronescapes]

If they did not flame-out in flight of course. Those engines were a nightmare even after the war. Testing was kept to a minimum, as they were quite a handful, both on the ground with their very limited lifespan, but also in flight. That might be the reason why the first properly operational axial turbojets after the war were not German. The Russians reversed engineered both variations of the German jet engines, and they discarded them, long after the end of the war. They were still unreliable, and over engineered. For their formidable MiG-15 they opted to use Whittle’s derived/reverse engineered centrifugal flow turbojet instead. Evidently the multiple flaws of the German engines were too many. It could also be one of the reasons why Heinkel/Von Ohain also tried to copy Whittle, and worked on an centrifugal turbojet as well. Beside the lack of materials, there were other issues, and the axial turbojet was just not ready for prime time, as Whittle’s intuition suggested in 1929 (that is also why he was a proper genius). A transitional solution was the perfect one. Whittle was ridiculed, and his projet was rejected by one of the experts in axial compressors, named Griffith, the same person that wrote a seminal paper on the subject in 1926, almost a decade before the Germans started working of the axial turbojet. The Germans on the other hand embarked on a mission to develop an engine that would have required many more years to be properly developed, and that was a strategic mistake. They could have just copied Whittle’s work, as they (disgracefully) had access to his work, as admitted by Hans Von Ohain himself. Call it arrogance, perhaps just a lack of strategic vision, but they still made the wrong choice, just like Griffith made a fatal mistake when he dismissed Whittle’s work, which was perhaps driven by jealousy, or an obvious conflict of interest.

[@AlexMarciniszyn-y1k]

What is this based on? A Russian film shows a Russian pilot taking off with an Me 262 shortly after the war. Me 262 flight testing occurred at Wright Field shortly after the war and film of tests exist. The Me 262's engine was good for about 22 hours before needing replacement. It was faster than anything the Allies had. The Gloester Meteor would never be sent out in combat with it. I have seen unpublished photos of persons unknown (not German) removing Me 262 engines from an unmarked structure. People write as if the Me 262 never achieved any combat victories.@@Dronescapes

[@stephenjacks8196]

Germany was running out of AV gas. Jets could use kerosene or synthetic oil. Not limited by piston engine problems.

[@Nemothewonderfish]

They were running out of all oil products and diesel. In 1942-43 tanks were lined up unused and unsent to the front as not enough fuel or logistical capability. WW2 is all about oil. And the allies had 90% of it.

[@phoenix211245]

​@@NemothewonderfishYes, the only hope germans really had of winning is hoping like hell the USA stays neutral and immediately going after the soviet oil fields to cut their fuel supply as well. They might have managed it in 1941 when the soviets were surrendering in droves and taking into account the much milder winter in the south. Instead they declared war on the USA and only made an attempt at Soviet oil in the second year of the war🤔 Frankly, neither they nor Japan had any chance of victory from the start.

[@stephenjacks8196]

@@Nemothewonderfish Allies had 130+ octane fuel (aviation gasoline) but Nazis had only 95 octane; or 100+ horsepower for fuel usage.

[@jhrusa8125]

If the jet was produced sooner history may have been different. And if the USA developed the nuke earlier germany would be different. And if the queen had balls she'd be king.

[@jameswebb4593]

Do you think that the Abomb was an American invention . It was that hubris that inspired the leakage of the secret to the Russians.

[@BrucePerkins-mc3hp]

LOL

[@udeychowdhury2529]

Your channel is great! Thanks for your videos

[@Dronescapes]

Glad you like them!

[@philiphumphrey1548]

The one time a better fighter aircraft could have turned the course of the war was June 1940 to May 1941. Getting air supremacy over Britain and the ability to bomb at will in daylight might just have been enough to force a treaty. After June 1941, it becomes mainly a land war and a battle of resources against the Soviet union. Germany had near air supremacy there for the first year or so anyway. Even without all the messing about, I suspect the Heinkel 280 would probably have been too late.

[@zcam1969]

Chuck Yeagar flying a P51 Mustang shot down a ME 1 jet . those early jets ran out fuel after 40 minutes of flight

[@Echo4Sierra4160]

Germanys fatal mistake was not using the Me-262 when it was invented in 1939.

[@Dronescapes]

That is because those German engines took ages to be developed. Despite having Heinkel, BMW, and Junkers working on it, they only managed to have an operational engine by the end of 1944, and that turbojet was still a semi disaster. It had a very poor lifespan, it was unreliable, and if you were not a good pilot, it would also flame-out and possibly kill you in the process. The fatal mistake was choosing to develop an axial flow turbojet. In Britain, Frank Whittle, the inventor of the turbojet, understanding very well all the issues that the axial engine would have had, opted for a centrifugal one, which was immensely more reliable, and much easier to develop. Eventually the axial would surpass the centrifugal, as Whittle perfectly knew, but his solution was the perfect one at the time. The British made a fatal mistake and did not support Whittle at all for more than 7 years, starting in 1929, the Germans just chose the wrong solution at the time.

[@Muzz-y5s]

It wasnt ready until early 1944 for production .hi from Australia

[@petter5721]

Alf Lysholm design the first Swedish jet engine in 1932, it was a fully working axial flow engine. The Lysholms engine or sometimes called the Bofors engine was built by Bofors as a test engine. It was newer serial produced due to lack of heat resistant materials.

[@Dronescapes]

It was not a (proven) working turbojet, and it was proposed by Lysholm as a project in 1933 (but even that date is not certain), and this is not Wikipedia information, but proper data. Whittle’s proposal, which eventually really worked in 1937,despite all the delays he had to face due to obstruction, predated Lysholm by 4 long years. Had Whittle been supported his engine would have worked several years before. His sole examiner, Mr. Griffith, was the author of a seminal paper on axial compressors in 1926. He was the main culprit for Whittle’s delays and complete lack of funding, and he was appointed by the government to judge the young genius projet. Call it jealousy, call it blatant conflict of interest, as Whittle bypassed the axial compressor in order to have a transitional turbojet, as he understood very well it would have taken more than a decade for an axial compressor to work properly, but Griffith killed the idea for at least the next 5 years. The Germans made the fatal mistake that Whittle did not make, and pursued an axial turbojet which had exactly all the problems that Whittle predicted, making it barely operational only at the end of 1944, with a long list of unsolved issues. It turned out it was pointless by that time, perhaps just good for nazi propaganda. The first properly reliable axial turbojet was not German, but British, in the 50s. By the way, it seems you might be referring to the screw compressor, which had some success for naval applications, but I never heard of a proper turbojet linked to the Swedish inventor.

[@edrosenquist6541]

My wife's grandfather was a photographer sent toward Italy to take photis of German postitions in the fall of '43. He told me that his flight of bombers were behind another flight of two Liberators. The pilots of gramps plane yelled for everyone to run up and watch what was happening. The guys watched two small planes attacking the two large bombers ahead of them. The planes were unbelievably fast; buzzing around the bombers, sending them both down in flames. But the speed that these planes flew off with was what shocked grandpas plane. They were too far away to see that these were jets. I doubt that anyone knew what they were. They finished the mission and then were debriefed. About two a.m. everyone on this flight was awakened and grilled for some time about what they had seen. From grandpas story I think the Germans were testing jets earlier than we think.

[@Joe-lb8qn]

My dad was in ww2 as anti aircraft operator. He said they saw one 262 (didn't know at the time what it was) that was there and gone before they could even react.

[@LeopardIL2]

Poor Udet, an old fashioned knight of the air, completely lost in the war production affairs. He was more interested in woman, cigars and cognac, with all due respect to his memory. Milsh was miles ahead but short sighted, the UHU night fighter being the best example of his sttuborness. Still Germany wasn´t that wrong: the V-1 was the first ever cruise missile, a key weapon in nowadays war. But WW2 was to be won by sheer numbers and industrial production, not techincal achievements. Thanks for posting.

[@alexjenner1108]

Sheer numbers and industrial production became a factor later in the war, but the English channel (Germany didn't have proper landing craft) and the Russian winter might have been more important. Without them, London and Moscow might have fallen before the US got involved in the war. No Second Battle of El Alamein, no D-Day. The US would have focused on Japan.

[@LeopardIL2]

@@alexjenner1108 Yes perhaps. 👍

[@deanr.johansen6377]

The truth is the Allies won WWII in Europe because Hitler made many, many great errors. He was of course, an unstable man. The Pacific War was greatly influenced by breaking the Japanese code. Without that, who knows how it might have ended.

[@rjj54321]

Germany's fatal mistake was, not watching this video.

[@Dronescapes]

😆

[@robertmaybeth3434]

The HE 280 was first flown in 1939. In hindsight, one might wonder why the Germans didn't pursue that huge advantage such a plane would provide by developing it as fast as possible. But at the time the 280 first flew and for a long time afterwards, Hitler believed the Germans did not need, and could not use, the 100 mph speed advantage that jets would give them. Ever the dilettante, Hitler in fact issued orders to his industrialists like Messerschmitt and Heinkel, to cancel all projects that would take longer than a year to complete - and all resources devoted to producing greater numbers of weapons they already had, instead. Almost arbitrarily Hitler had decided that existing aircraft were satisfactory, since surely victory must be just around the corner! And let's not forget that starting in 1939, the Germans began a (historically unprecedented) winning streak. In every campaign, against all of western Europe, in Scandinavia, the Balkans, in North Africa, in Russia and even in the Battle of the Atlantic against British shipping, the Germans seemed invincible well into 1942. And though the British began strategic bombing of the Germans almost immediately the war started, it seemed to Hitler and Goerring their luftwaffe would be more than enough to counter any attack the RAF was capable of carrying out. This situation gradually got worse for the Germans, of course, and by the time the RAF and USAAF joined forces and began bombing Germany round-the-clock, the situation quickly became a dire one in 1943 (and became crippling by 1944). And by the time allied strategic bombing truly began to devastate German industry and to lay waste to large areas of the continent, it was far too late for even jet aircraft to make a real difference, against the ever-growing might of the allied forces.

[@peceed]

He-178.

[@jeffkujawa803]

Very well said !….you certainly sound as if you know more than a little of what you’re talking about …. a comment that has good perspective

[@williamh3823]

A cadre of german high command agreed with that..1943..the End could be seen in the 3rd Riech..they got a hi-level dispatch to Eisenhower..turning down a conditional surrender

[@keithw4920]

A working proximity fuze for their 88 and 128 AA shells would have done more than jets.

[@powerjets3512]

Very good documentary going into much more detail than most. The real story is about the jet engines. Metals again is a red herring. All had access to them early in the war and it was a question of prioritization. Metals place temperature constraints on the design as does the pressure. While higher pressures, from multi stage compressors, give more efficiency, the temperatures go up so as to hit the same limits faced by centrifugal designs. The problems with the axial designs was getting close to the limits without exceeding them in operational settings. This was the reason for much of the axial reliability issues. It was combustion technology and poor engine controls that was the problem. This was really only solved a decade later with fast electrical (electronic) controls and control variables in the forms of bypasses etc. Whittle understood these things and as Eric Brown stated the centrifugal design was the correct one for the time. What is not gone into, is why the Nazi's abandoned their (Heinkel) centrifugal designs. They were just bad, which let the competition in claiming they could build a better axial design and in a shorter time.

[@pixsilvb9638]

Udet was the veteran WWI pilot/military advisor from the old guard. Goering was the veteran WWI pilot/political chief of the old guard. Molders and Galland were the current WWII pilots/military advisors from the new guard. When Molders died, Galland found himself alone, in the middle of the war, fighting against the bureaucracy, the bad political decisions, and the industrial secrecy surrounding the development of german jet technology, in a chaotic environment of political intrigues, industrialists jealousy, a losing military conflict, and a destroyed aeronautical production infrastructure.

[@jerrybuirski2344]

Udet shot down 59 Allied planes during WWI while Goring only downed13 or 14, and still got the Blue Max for that. Galland's book is highly recommended. What few people know is that German pilots got zero time off - no wonder so many bodies eventually just gave in.

[@pixsilvb9638]

@ plus Goering brother saved hundreds of jews during the war. He is one of the savior justs, like Viktor Schindler, or Raoul Gallenberg. Incredible family twist.

[@stormytempest6521]

WONDERFULL FILM, THANKS.

[@fasteddiesgarage5000]

The E 2839 has a striking resemblance to the F86 sabre except the swept wings but I'll bet that's where America got the design from

[@paullakowski2509]

I think it might be the other way around . I remember reading Germans uncover American research into possibilities of swept wing and decided to apply it to plans for the so called ''AMERICA BOMBER. as well as Me 262. After a while that could have come full circle. Americans used German plans to adjust the B-36 bomber plans

[@alanluscombe8a553]

This channel is so great

[@retepeyahaled2961]

Very profession video! Anyway, here are my thoughts on this topic. The Allies were years ahead with the atomic bomb, strategic bombers, logistics and radar. On the other hand, the Germans were years ahead in airplane development and rocket development. After the war, scores of German scientists were taken to the USA and many German inventions were put into practice in the United States. The most obvious example is Werner von Braun with his rockets, but the list is very long. The US continued production of the V-1 as JB-2, the German R4M Orkan unguided missile was the predecessor of the FFAR Mighty Mouse, professor Adolf Busemann was a leading scientist on aerodynamics and helped developing the swing wing jet fighters, the prototype Messserschmitt P.1101 was the first swing wing jet plane on earth, copied by the Americans into the Bell X-5, professor Lippisch helped develop the delta wing for the F-102 Delta Dart... So why is it that, after 75 years, we still rather make videos on the incompetence of the German managment when it comes to topics where the Germans were ahead of the Allies? This applies to airplanes, tanks and war tactics.

[@erichvonmanstein6876]

Too much wrong in your post im not going to bother

[@retepeyahaled2961]

@@erichvonmanstein6876 I could expect nothing else from you, who calls himself "greatest military mind".

[@erichvonmanstein6876]

@@retepeyahaled2961 thats what you get for having expectations on a public open forum media platform🤷

[@AlexMarciniszyn-y1k]

The Allies were years ahead with the atomic bomb? I suggest you read Critical Mass by Carter P. Hydrick. It shows reproductions of original Manhattan Project documents that show the Americans would not have enough fissile material to drop two different types of atom bombs later in the war.

[@WillYouVid]

Out of a context that includes the important factor of it having a liquid-cooleed engine, saying that the He 112 had comparable-or-better flight performance than the Me 109 is misguiding. A liquid cooling system makes an aircraft way too vulnerable to bullet hits to the wings. That was the most common type of hit back in their era of dogfight.

[@rbilleaud]

It's not entirely true that the Me-262 was the only jet fighter in production at the end of the war. The He-162 was a general mess, but over 500 were produced.

[@Dronescapes]

You are right, but their operational history was minimal, and they also had an abysmal 30' flight time, and another series of issues that made them quite dangerous to operate.

[@Crazy_Worlds]

CORRECTION The British Gloster Meteor jet fighter entered operational service on 27th July 1944. It was the Americans who had nothing comparable, whereas the Brits did. 0:39

[@RandomDudeOne]

US had the P-80 Shooting Star under development which first flew January 1944. The P-80 had the engine in the fuselage like all modern jet fighters, the Meteor was obsolete from the start with its engines mounted on the wings. Lockheed proposed developing a jet fighter in 1939 but the Army wasn't interested. Turned out the Army was right as far as WWII goes, as they mention in this documentary jet fighters had no significant impact on the course of the war. The Allies could be thankful the Germans wasted much of their resources on ineffectual programs like the ME-262 the V rockets.

[@mac22011964]

True, but the ‘star used a copy of the British jet engine AND the ‘star had significant low speed handling problems that were never fully resolved.

[@tonyadams6375]

Excellent video. Germanys lack of coordination in aircraft production was a blessing in disguise.

[@nicklovell5872]

I think the criticism of the Jumo004 jet engine was rather unfair. While the narration did mention the lack of certain metals and alloys, it was only in reference to the reliability of the engines🎉. The lack of suitable metals was also the main reason for the engine's terribly short life. I think the engines had a maximum run time of about 24 hours, at which point they were replaced and the old engine scrapped. Considering it was one of the first operational jet engines in existence, it didnt do too badly. I am pretty sure that the first couple of operational internal combustion engined cars were rather unreliable too.

[@Dronescapes]

But the fact that nobody really cared about using them after the war is a good indication of the flaws they had, which went beyond the usual ‘lack of materials’. The Soviets discarded multiple reverse engineered versions of the German turbojets, and chose to copy the British one instead for their MiG15s. Do not forget that Britain had been working of turbojets before Germany, and also on Both axial, and centrifugal ones. The proper axial turbojets, available in the mid 50s, were not derived from German ones. Only France really tried to do something with them, and the help of ex Nazi engineers, but I do not recall them making the history books. Do not forget that Von Ohain, the German inventor, also had full access to Whittle’s work (the British inventor that made the first turbojet). The British government made the mistake of not making his work top secret, and it was spread across German universities. Von Ohain, after some reticence, eventually admitted having had some access to it, further confirmed by his assistant that expanded their access to ‘full’.

[@nicklovell5872]

@@Dronescapes The Czech Air force flew the Me262 till the early 50s using a refined version of the Jumo 004 which had an increased life and improved reliability which suggests that the engines did have the potential for improvement. Britain was also developing axial flow engines during the war and many of the design features used in the Jumo 004 were adopted by the US and Britain when designing the second generation of engines in the early to mid 50s.

[@Dronescapes]

I would hardly consider the Czech Air Force any kind of reference for aviation, and other than taking a quick look, Britain had nothing to learn, or copy, from the German turbojet. I have no idea where you might have learned that information, but it is unheard of. All they had to do was to keep working on what they had been developing for a long time, much longer than Germany as a matter of fact. Perhaps you ignore the fact that Britain, for a multitude of logical reasons was not particularly interested in investing time and resources on a turbojet during the 30s, going as far as issuing a ban on R&D for a few years. To add to to the story, it is relevant to also cite the ‘desperate’ attempt of Von Ohain/Heinkel to develop a centrifugal turbojet, most likely after they realized that that putting all their eggs in the axial basket had been a huge mistake, and a waste of resources. It was too little, too late. Multiple German companies (Heinkel, BMW, and Junkers), 6 long years of R&D, and immense resources, still could not produce an operationally decent engine by the end of 1944. Over engineering, materials, and other various flaws, including the infamous flame-outs, doomed those engines. As you can see, I keep adding historical facts to the narrative, and there are probably even more. Referencing an obscure Air Force is really not going to make a dent in the history of the turbojet, especially because the very few Me 262 they had were substituted by Soviet MiG15s powered by none other than Whittle’s reverse engineered British/Whittle/Rolls Royce engines. They literally had no history of any kind of relevance historically speaking

[@jrnmadsen2710]

According to British test pilot Eric 'Winkle' Brown, the 262 came as a shock to the allied. It outperformed everything the allied had. It demonstrated Germany was 5 years ahead in plane technology. The 262 used technology the allied had no clue about. According to Eric 'Winkle' Brown, had the 262 not been delayed by administration, it could have won WWII for Germany. But what did Eric 'Winkle' Brown knew about the situation - compared to a KZbinr :)

[@Dronescapes]

The airframe was excellent, also because they had wind tunnels that the Brits could only dream about, but the turbojet was a semi-disaster, despite 6 years of development after the first flight, and multiple German companies (BMW, Junkers, Heinkel) working on them. After the war the axial turbojet that eventually surpassed the centrifugal turbojet, was not German, as even the Soviets discarded multiple variations in favor of Whittle’s engine for their MiG15s. The German engines were hopelessly flawed. Do not forget that the British had been working on both axial, and centrifugal since the early 30s, but they did not consider them strategically vital, concentrating their resources on other matters. It can be argued that if they supported Whittle in 1929, they would have had a proper turbojet years before the beginning of the war. The centrifugal turbojet was, unlike the axial turbojet, easy to develop, and most importantly reliable, lasting 100s of hours between overhaul, compared to the 15 of the German turbojet, which also had to be scrapped completely after only 25, that if it did not kill you because of the flame-outs in flight, which was another problem. Considering that this is what Germany achieved after so many years of development,when the Me 262 was deployed at the very end of 1944, I can see why they just wasted time, resources, and money, ending up with a few propaganda planes that served no practical purpose in the war.

[@jrnmadsen2710]

@@Dronescapes According to Eric Brown, the 262 was state of the art at that time. Yes,- jet engine technology was at its beginning, but at that time, Germany went for what was most promising. With further development after the war, engineering went for different designs. Very true, but back then, no one knew anything. It was test and trial. The 262 was still +100 mph faster than the British Meteor. It would not stand a chance against the 262 in combat. Only Germany had discovered and developed the swept back wing design,- to avoid pressure waves on the wings closing in on the speed of sound. The allied had no idea about this design. Every modern fighter today uses it. 80 years later. According to Eric Brown himself, the 262 was a shock, a giant leap forward and a new generation of fighters. The allied had nothing able to compete. It's fair to say the 262 had its faults, actually a lot of them, but it showed the future,- and according to Eric Brown, could have changed the outcome of WWII. Had it not been delayed by administration and poor leadership decisions. Total air superiority. Changing engines often would be a small price of winning the war. Besides that - the total production cost of a 262 was lower than the price of a FW190. But its all history, I'm happy the way it happened :)

[@Dronescapes]

I insist that Eric Brown considered the airframe of the 262 excellent, but certainly not the engine. We have hours, and hours of his interviews on the channel, including never seen before raw ones.

[@jrnmadsen2710]

@@Dronescapes Eric Brown: The 262 was a shock for the allied. Huge step forward. A generation shift in fighter planes. We had nothing able to compete. +125 mph faster than the allied fighters, +100 mph faster than the British Meteor. The 262 implemented technology unknown to the allied. The 262 could have won WWII for Germany. Had it been implemented a little faster. Yes, the tech was new and had it's problems. Not only the short life of the engines, but also the re-training of the pilots. The old tactics had to be replaced, as the 262 was so much faster than anything they were used to,- and the enemy suddenly was slow "turtles". But,- Germany improved things fast. They just needed more time to solve the problems. But not fast enough, they lost the war. The administrative delay was huge. But the aftermath showed it was the right path,- the German engineers got busy after WWII. Designing new jet fighters for the allied. Every fighter after WWII looked like copies of the 163, 262 and 1101. Wernher von Braun took over the US space programs until the moon landing. In worst case, if the German industry was at its full power, they could just replace the engines every 20-25 hours. It was made easy by design. It was a close race. But total air superiority could have won WWII. It's quite strange. Some people still tries to win WWII? "Their tanks sucked". "Their planes was horrible". "We made better shoe laces than Germany, they had to loose the war". Etc etc.

[@Dronescapes]

You seem to forget that Britain had been developing (proper) turbojets for years. Using your logic you can say that Britain could have had a centrifugal powered jet by the beginning of the war, hence they would have obliterated the Luftwaffe, at the same time they could have also developed their axial turbojets, which would have performed as well. They chose not to do so for many reasons, mostly strategic. For example, ask yourself how many 262s made it across the channel…None! Range was also an issue for turbojets at the time, so Britain so no use for aircraft with such a limited range. They were (smartly) not in any rush to deploy an immature technology,and waste precious resources like the Germans did (huge mistake). Von Braun had nothing to do with turbojets at all, and just as a reminder Britain gave the U.S. Whittle’s turbojet in 1941 (it first flew in 1942 in a Bell XP-59), but they also their work on axial turbojets (Metrovick). After the war the British turbojets became the proper ones, both centrifugal, and eventually in the mid 50s, even the axial. Germany certainly had great wind tunnels, but those turbojets were a dead end, and the logic that they could just keep swapping engines is comical. Those engines also had a tendency to flame out, and try to kill you. That tendency was never fixed either. Not everything German is good. Look at their Diesel engines, despite having an Italian invention that greatly improved their efficiency (common rail), they still had to cheat, and lie to sell their cars. In Formula 1, in order to win everything for years, they needed a virtually British team to run their team. Bosh gave us the brilliant ABS, yet is is again an Italian invention they purchased, but did not create. Porsche 911s were a death trap for a lot of long time, and BMWs crashed at the sight of rain back in the days. Of course after working on the 911 for a million years, eventually it became perfect, but it still mostly uses paddle shifting, like all German high end cars, also introduced by Italians (Ferrari F1). They obviously lost the battle of the electric car, despite arrogantly thinking they could make Tesla vanish from the market once they released their wonder cars…It seems they got that very wrong as well. Just a few examples…

[@SP_Hatter]

Great video!

[@Dronescapes]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@scotthix2926]

Just throwing this out there. If the 262 and 280 had gone into production earlier, what affect would it have really done. The British would have countered with focus meteor improvements. Possibly 6 month extension to the war. Possibly reducer bomber raids into Germany from western Allies but Soviet’s are still coming from the East.

[@bouffon1]

A very similar story can be told about the German submarines. Type XXI, larger, able to stay underwater for much longer periods, etc. Captains of the earlier U-Boot VII were frustrated to hear of stockpiles of snorkels not being allowed to be used, at a time when they were losing 4 -5 U-Boots a dya.

[@chriscaptain3141]

Thanks regards from Germany Germany, think greater play is still going on regards to UK, love Newcastle

[@joe2mercs]

Eric ‘winkle’ Brown said that the Me262 had the same failings as the Gloucester Meteor in that the jet engines were thirsty meaning that they had a limited radius of operation and short loiter times. Furthermore once the speed of the aircraft had slowed down the jet engine exhibited slow throttle response. The combination of these factors meant that the Me262 had to refuel frequently and was vulnerable to attack by Typhoon and Tempest aircraft on approach to landing.

[@Dronescapes]

Eric Brown made some very good remarks about the Me 262's Jumo engines: they were disastrously short lived, lasting only a few hours before needing to be completely scrapped, they could only be handled properly by expert pilots, and they were prone to deadly flame-outs. the short range was one of the issues, but perhaps not the main one, but also one of the reasons why the British had no intention of deploying them operationally, being quite useless in winning the war. You can safely say that is Whittle had not been delayed by 6/7 years, his "transitional" centrifugal turbojet, which contrary to the axial turbojet was both very easy to develop, but also very reliable, could have been a vital part of WW2, as it could have been ready by the beginning of the war, rather than being flawed by the end, like the Jumo turbojet was. Whittle's engine reached the same speed of the Jumo engine in 1945 in a Meteor. Imagine if the British had it in 1938! We can all thank Griffith, one of the fathers of the axial turbojet, for turning down Whittle's proposal to the air ministry in 1929, almost a decade before the first German jet powered flight, the He 178, which was not powered by an axial turbojet, but by none other than a centrifugal turbojet, hence Whittle's invention. Hans Von Ohain had full access to Whittle's work, since it was not secreted by the British government, and had been copied and distributed across German universities. Brown was very vocal at the way Whittle was treated before, and after the war.

[@jacksonpollock814]

Why does the fella at the beginning ignore the meteor (which is mentioned shortly afterwards) it was on par with the 262 in speed but wasn't allowed to fly over enemy territory.

[@Dronescapes]

What should really matter to everyone is that if people in charge supported Sir Frank Whittle, Britain would have had an operational jet by the beginning of the war, and not years later. That is the real elephant in the room when it comes to turbojets

[@russellblake9850]

"fabric gave way to steel" ?? ... fabric gave way to metal (like Aluminium)

[@johnburns4017]

The Meteor was an all new design for jet engines, with a forward pilot position, and high tail to be out of the engine thrust. Although it was deliberately conventional so as to pinpoint any problems down to the jet engine rather than the airframe. The design was made larger into the Canberra used by the USA as the B-57. NASA still flay a B-57 today. It flew so high it flew anywhere over the USSR, as the Soviets could not get that high at the time.

[@billballbuster7186]

The German axial-flow jet engines were really too advanced for the technology of the day and so were of very poor quality, unreliable and with short engine life. The British centrifugal-flow jet engines were much more powerful and reliable, almost all post-WW2 jet fighters flew on British designed engines. Including F-80 Shooting Star, F9F Panther F-94 Starfire and MiG-15 ect. The axial-flow jet engines did not mature until the early 1950s, but by the mid 1950s had surpassed the centrifugal-flow jets in power output.

[@blintzkreig1638]

Not the Mig-15. That jet used German designs.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@blintzkreig1638 NO the German designs were crap. The Soviet Union bought the Rolls Royce Nene and copied it to produce the Klimov RD-45 / KV-1 engines , which powered MiG-15, MiG-17 and Il-28 bomber.

[@Dronescapes]

@blintzkreig1638 The Soviets tested the reverse-engineered Jumo engine for the MiG15 but discarded it because, even years after the end of the war, those engines were still unreliable, over-engineered, short-lived, and prone to dangerous flame-outs. they instead used Whittle's reverse-engineered/derived turbojet, which made the MiG a formidable aircraft. By the way, Sir Frank Whittle (British) was the inventor of the turbojet, and the same person that was the inspiration for Von Ohain, as the German engineer had access to his work. At least Von Ohain was kind enough to credit Whittle as the real inventor of the turbojet, something that too many people are not aware of. The date was April 1937, followed by Von Ohain's in September 1937 with unsuitable fuel, and March 1938 with proper fuel. Of course, most of us know about the first flight, which was on a German aircraft in 1939, but that also hints at how wrong it was for Germany to pursue an axial turbojet at the time. It took seven long years, and three German companies developed it after it worked (Heinkel, BWM, and Junkers), and even at the end of 1944 when it finally became operational, it was still quite useless. It would take another decade (and Britain), to have a proper axial turbojet, and that is precisely why, starting in 1929, Frank Whittle opted for a simpler solution, one that was easy to develop, and would have been reliable, the centrifugal turbojet. That is one of the many reasons why Whittle was a true genius, as his strategic vision was perfect at the time. Unfortunately, his work was halted immediately by Mr. Griffith, the same person who wrote a fundamental paper on axial compressors in 1926 (when Von Ohain was still a kid!). Had Griffith not delayed Whittle by a good 5 years, and had Whittle been properly funded, like his German counterpart that was being pampered by Heinkel, Britain would have had the perfect turbojet for the time around 1934, and most certainly a jet aircraft by the beginning of the war. It it almost shocking to think that Whittle managed to create a working turbojet by spending, in today's money. around £200,000. A drop in the bucket! He was also ordered by his superior to not work more than 6 hours a week on his project, and if it wasn't enough, Britain also issued a halt on turbojet development in the 30s. All considering, if you think how useless the German turbojet was, perhaps Britain was strategically right, at least when it comes to the axial turbojet (at the time of course), but the government missed Whittle's genius for way too long. On the other hand, the Americans recognized his brilliance, having received one of Whittle's engines in 1941 in great secrecy. That engine, in the hands of General Electric, powered the first jet flight on US soil in 1942, in a Bell XP-59. Whittle's engine also became the first Pratt & Whitney's turbojet. Whittle eventually moved to the US and was treated the way he was supposed to be treated starting in 1929, instead of being ignored for almost a decade, and later being set aside, when his work was handed to Rolls Royce

[@billballbuster7186]

@@Dronescapes The Soviets and Czechs spent a few years cloning the Jumo 004 and BMW 003. They used them in the Avia S-92, MiG-9, Yak-15 and La-168, none being successful.

[@gilgamesh101]

Which only existed in the first place because they invested heavily in the jet technology invented and patented by the British genius Frank Whittle pre WW2. It was long ignored by the British, who eventually developed the far superior Gloucester. The same technology was also freely given to the Americans who, when combined with captured German tech, went on to develop their own aircraft and a lot more (in the same way that they did with a wide range of comms, jet and many other ground-breaking inventions that they took advantage of post WW2 ... unsurprisingly, there's barely ever been any recognition of any of this in the American movie-based version of history or recognised in the US historical narrative. @@blintzkreig1638

[@charlieboffin2432]

Fascinating documentary really enjoyed this and it’s interesting to see it explained about the practical problems of the German jet engines and also the level of apathy and interference . Many videos about the German jet force merely say that it was numbers and date of becoming operational was the key to failing to be decisive in the air superiority war .

[@AlexMarciniszyn-y1k]

What is the obsession with decisive? If the British found themselves in the same position as Germany, would they stop fighting or fight on with what they had?

[@macthemec]

WWII was won on a razors edge, had the British gone all in on jet engines the war would have been over quickly, had the germans followed proper voice protocols the U boats would have been successful, if Russia didn’t have the coldest winter on record they would have lost, had Germany made the assault rifle standard issue after normandy they would have won, it was a phenomenal time

[@MrDaiseymay]

EXCELLENT, A FIRST CLASS REVELATION OF HOW CLOSE WE CAME TO DEFEAT, FAILING ONLY, DUE TO MANY SELF-MADE ERRORS AND INCOMPETANCE FROM THE TOP.

[@AlexMarciniszyn-y1k]

That's quite true.

[@stephenhosking7384]

The resistance of Goering and Udet to jet engines is difficult to understand today, but I can provide some support. My grandfather Captain Francis Finlay (google him, for a minor hit in Australia) was a pioneering pilot in Australia, owning an aircraft and becoming a professional pilot the 1920s. He flew as a commercial aviator and instructor until c1960. While he was in his sixties we had many conversations where he told me with pride of his flying days (with his favourite aircraft being the Tiger Moth). So, you would imagine that my grandfather, having been adventurous in becoming a pilot in the early days, would have moved with aviation technology? Certainly not! He "loved" the piston engine and distrusted jet engines, and never flew in a jet-engined plane in his life - chosing to drive when there was no other option. So, Goering's and Udet's aversion to jets may have been shared by many early aviators.

[@toxified3937]

Germany's "fatal mistake" was believing people would want to know the truth rather than only what they're told. Every single bit of their technology was used to further everyone else's. They couldn't stand making anything with a "flaw" but situations evolve and urgency was increased. Not that complicated.

[@lars7747]

You have some serious issues if you actually believe the shit you wrote

[@christophnews]

Excellent documentary!

[@Dronescapes]

Many thanks!

[@chamuuemura5314]

31:30 Pragmatism was the key. Ideally axial would have been better but production and maintenance issues made centrifugal more realistic. Also having fewer hot-headed bureaucrats helped.

[@Dronescapes]

More than ideally, that is precisely why Whittle, in 1929, presented his project, and ditched an axial solution. He fully understood the short term issues of developing an axial turbojet, which is precisely the mistake that Von Ohain made. Unfortunately Whittle had to face Mr. Griffith as his sole judge, and he rejected his project, delaying it by several years, and virtually killing any prospect of receiving funds from the government. Griffith also happened to be the very person that wrote a seminal paper on axial compressor years earlier (1926), so you can easily see why he would have every interest in squashing Whittle. Had Griffith given the go ahead, Britain would have had a working (centrifugal) turbojet before the beginning of the war, and ages before the Germans, as their operational Me 262 entered service in late 1944 with their flawed axial turbojet, despite 6 long years of development, after the first flight. Suffice to say that those German engines were so flawed that the Soviets ditched them after the war, after attempting to reverse engineer, and use them in their MiG15, and they ended up using Whittle/RR/Nene reverse engineered engines, after Rolls Royce sold a few units to them. Ironically in Korea, allied aircraft were shot down by MiG15 equipped with a British engine (copied). The Shooting Star was also equipped by Whittle's derived engine, which was also the first turbojet to fly on U.S. soil in 1942 (Bell XP-59), as Britain shipped his engines to G.E. in 1941. The P-80 Shooting Star was USAF’s first operational jet fighter, and one of Kelly Johnson's aircraft.

[@stevehaylingisland]

Fabric gave way to Aluminium alloy not steel.

[@gordonfarrell6732]

The steel is under the fabric lol

[@stevefox7566]

The downfall of the Me 262 (or any of the early German Jets) was that they were maintenance nightmares that need their engines replaced after a few hours use. And Germany wasn't in a position to keep up with the demand of this.

[@AlexMarciniszyn-y1k]

Oh yes it was.

[@maxwellschmid588]

"It can initiate or finish combat as it wishes." The sheer power that exudes from that sentence is amazing

[@arturs2436]

Bit curious that there is no reference to the first italian jet powered aircraft flight on 27 of August 1940: the Caproni Campini N.1, 1 year after the Heinkel He 178(27 of August 1939).

[@Dronescapes]

That is because it was not 100% clear if it flew with a compressor on that flight. After the war it was not interesting for the allies either, suggesting that perhaps it was a bit of an ineffective turbojet

[@alyssatipton5080]

Imagine how terrifying Nazi Germany would have been if they more competent leaders running the show

[@benrussell-gough1201]

"Those who the Gods destroy, they first drive mad" and it was the essential insanity of all the Nazi leadership that doomed Germany at every level.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

if they had, maybe they would have been smart enough to not start WW2? its a paradox.

[@JonCaliber45]

It would not have mattered. The Axis powers never had the resources and had no practical chance to acquire the necessary resources to change the inevitable.

[@Susy5solo]

I think fabric gave way to aluminium not steel as the skin of aircraft, not sure a steel skinned aircraft in the a 30s would have a stellar performance 😊

[@gazzas123]

They didn't use steel it was aluminium

[@johnburns4017]

The Germans had not established technical superiority. Pre WW2 Britain was on two paths: *1)* The *axial-flow* air compressor by Griffiths; *2)* The *centrifugal* air compressor by Whittle. There were *five* turbojet engines in the UK under R&D in WW2: *1)* *Centrifugal,* by Whittle (Rover); *2)* *Centrifugal,* by Frank Halford (DeHaviland); *3)* *Axial-flow,* by Metro-Vick; *4)* *Axial-flow* by Griffiths (Rolls Royce); *5)* *Axial flow compressor, with reverse flow combustion chambers.* The ASX by Armstrong Siddley; Griffiths' 1926 seminal paper laid down axial-flow. His paper actually outlined a turbo prop. He did not believe at the time the engines could produce enough thrust, but could turn a propeller. He got Metrovick to develop an axial-flow turbojet in 1938, who started the groundwork of the F.2 axial-flow in 1940, having an engine first spin in 1940, with a successful test bed spin in 1941. Whittle's patent was in 1930, which laid down the _turbojet._ All this info was available to the Germans. Whittle went for centrifugal, as it was a _simpler_ way of compressing air. Whittle wanted a simple air compressor to establish his turbo jet design *_quickly._* In short, he was interested more in establishing the back end of the engine, the thrust, rather than the front. Once the back end was perfected then he could improve the front, the air compression. This was the sensible approach. The centrifugal compressor was perfectly adequate to prove the rear thrust side of the engine. As post war engines proved, the centrifugal was taken to higher limits. Axial-flow compression was a series of turbine fans on one shaft, with successive fans passing air to the next fan to increase air compression. This added complexity in many ways. Griffiths went for the more complex axial-flow. He also laid down a contra-rotating compressor, but Metrovick did not go down that road. The more powerful F.2 was used to fly the Meteor plane but considered unreliable at that stage, so Whittle's centrifugal engine was used. The F.2 was more reliable than the German Jumo, but the British would never put a plane in the air with such an unreliable under-developed engine as the Jumo. Wiggin in Birmingham were commissioned to develop high temperature resistant alloys as the jet engines were being developed. The Germans had no such programme, yet the Germans did have access to many rare metals contrary to popular belief. The F.2 ended up as the post war Sapphire being built under licence in the USA as the J65, powering the: Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, Grumman F-11 Tiger, Martin B-57 and the Republic F-84F Thunderstreak. It took the French a wasted *eight* years to get the German design reliable, which by that time they had discarded many of the German engine concepts. The 1950s French airliner the Sud Aviation Caravelle, used Rolls Royce Avon engines the French engines, based on German designs, were so good.

[@israellopez959]

I was born in 1960 and have read many books, seen photographs of WWII, attended multiple history classes and have seen old film documentaries that they all said that it was the Germans who first developed the technology of jet engines, that German scientists were decades ahead compared to the Allies. Yet in this documentary, it's obvious there's a lot of manipulations of how photos of that era are presented and there appears to be fabrication of history that gives credit to the British for the invention of the jet engine...I personally have major objections with that story.

[@Dronescapes]

The history of the turbojet can be easily settled with two key facts: 1. Hans Von Ohain credited Whittle as the inventor in his own book. He also clearly admitted that he had access to Whittle’s work when he started working on his project. His assistant further expanded on that, explaining that the access was even more extensive than previously thought. 2. Whittle’s turbojet was bench tested in April 1937. Hans Von Ohain’s first attempt, with an unfit fuel, happened in September 1937, followed by a successful attempt with proper fuel in March 1938. We know this courtesy of Mr. Heinkel’s own diaries. As you might know he bankrolled, and supported Von Ohain’s work, a privilege that Whittle’s never had (quite the contrary). 3. Britain was virtually working on both axial, and centrifuge turbojets, they simply did not think they were strategically important. 4. The German engines, despite 5 long years of development after the first flight, and multiple companies involved, could still not deploy a properly operational turbojet at the end of 1944. Those Jumo engines were: over engineered, short lived, hard to manage, and prone to lethal flame-outs. They literally lasted a handful of hours, and beside a short lived propaganda hype, they were absolutely useless. The best proof of that is that hardly anyone was interested in them after the war. The Brits had a better idea of how to develop axial turbojets (and also had centrifugal ones), the Soviets tried to use them after the war, but they quickly discarded two variations precisely because they were useless in practical terms. Despite having the materials needed, the Soviets deemed them unfit for their formidable MiG 15, and completely abandoned any hope of making something out of those flawed engines. They chose Whittle’s (copied) turbojet instead, and as we all know, it worked exceptionally well. 5. Griffith, the person most responsible for halting Whittle’s work for 5 long years, was the author of a seminal paper on axial compressors. He published it in 1926, almost a decade before Germany started working on an axial turbojet…A decade is a long, long time. I suspect you had really confused teachers, or perhaps they were German 😉

[@modeljetjuggernaut4864]

That take-off run of the He162...🤩

[@dougmallory2600]

except they forgot airbrakes at the beginning so they had that closing speed but only had 6 seconds to fire

[@jarigustafsson7620]

if i was the head of German Aircraft ministry i've had focused on the FW-190, JU-290, and the HE-280.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

No coverage of *why* Heinkel's own centrifugal flow jet engines were a failure. It seems strange that the design form Whittle concentrated on for simplicity and reliability couldn't work for Heinkel. The Americans and the Soviets enthusiastically developed the Whittle centrifugal types.

[@Dronescapes]

Perhaps they could not properly copy from Whittle, as Von Ohain/Heinkel had access to his work since 1935, if I recall correctly. What Von Ohain only partially admitted to, was further corroborated by his assistant, who revealed the full access they had at the time. Obviously they did not have access to Whittle's later work, which could be one of the reasons

[@robertbolivarr8363]

The fatal mistakes came from the Fine Arts Academy of Vienna. After WW II, The Prestigious Fine Arts Academy of Vienna accepted all applicants.

[@xhetoomni8134]

The fatal flaw was that it used up its fuel to quick. Its emptying of fuel which brought it back down to the ground was like the Wright brothers first plane which first flight only went the length of a 747.

[@hugofontankohler3724]

Excelente vídeo. Sugiro uma análise do modelo Tamiya.

[@oxcart4172]

26:25, I've always wondered about that landing. Is it as bad as it looks?

[@lucasandrade234]

someone please tell them a quantium jump is something really small. particles dont really get very far...

[@frankgerlach4467]

Arguably, the weakness in diplomacy, intelligence and ciphers was even more devastating for Germany. From bad diplomacy followed one front too much and too little supply of oil and special metals for the Jet engines. From bad ciphers followed too much supply for the opposition and one battle lost too much in the east. Weak intelligence(read: doublecross) meant that the high command was often confused. But in the end, if you put everything on "red" in the casino royale, chances are high that you lose everything.

[@topbanana4013]

something missing here, the Germans had seen whittles design before they built there own but nothing been said in this doc

[@effbee56]

Possibly the issues with German aircraft production related to the change in balance between individual aircraft manufacturers and central bureaucratic control. I think this also held the Soviets back.

[@SSHitMan]

The way I understood it the 262 was ready to go as a fighter but Hitler, still wanting revenge for losing the Battle of Britain, demanded that it be able to carry bombs and that delayed production considerably much to the benefit of the allies.

[@Dronescapes]

The problem with those jet aircraft is that the engines were utterly flawed by the time they were deployed, in late 1944, despite 6 long years of development by at least 3 German companies. They lasted a handful of hours, they were unreliable, and had a lethal tendency of flaming out. Those engines, beside being useless, sparked no serious interest on any nation after the war. The were discarded by the Soviets, and the British had been working on them all along, also having multiple solutions. Two years prior the effective deployment, those engine’s probably didn’t work at all. In 1944 the very few that flew were good for a short lived propaganda, but not much more.

[@johnburns4017]

pilots were told not to go more than 450mph in the 262 as above that speed they were unstable and prone to engine burn out. Few ever reached 550 mph. So Eric Brown's statement is too narrow to give the true picture. The manufacturers said it did but a maker exaggerating a product? Well I never! One way of really upsetting the balance and handling of a 262 was to fire off the ammunition, which it did quite quickly.

[@RFGfotografie]

I love WW2 docu's :)

[@markdavis2475]

Grest episode thanks.

[@Dronescapes]

You are welcome. Thanks for watching

[@freedomisntfree_44]

The top fighter at the end of the war was the p51 mustang not the spitfire

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Mk XIV Spitfire had a much more powerful Griffon engine. The Grumman F8F Bearcat was similar but just missed the war.

[@MJ-hg1mk]

I was wondering the same?

[@MJ-hg1mk]

​@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935when was it introduced in combat?

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

@@MJ-hg1mk Mk XIV? Production started October 43, entered service in December 43. (from wiki)

[@byronjensen-vb1xv]

and to show the excellence of the axial flow, gloster meteors are still flying today with these original engines.

[@Dronescapes]

Although it shares nothing with the German engines, as the Brits had been working on both centrifugal, and axial flow engines since the 30s. Ultimately the proper axial turbojet was not German. You can certainly argue that Britain delayed, mostly for strategic reasons, the turbojet development, but with people like Griffith writing seminal papers on axial compressors in 1926, and Whittle being literally blocked by Griffith himself for many years, it is safe to say that Britain had both options covered, but missed a massive opportunity to have at least the centrifugal turbojet ready by the beginning of the war, several years before the Germans, who also had plenty access to, for example, Whittle’s work. Interestingly Von Ohain and Heinkel ended up trying to develop a centrifugal turbojet, perhaps after realizing how immature the axial jet was.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

For all their technical ability, the Germans could not make a reliable wood glue. They tried to copy the British Mosquito but it literally fell apart due to adhesive failure.

[@thamesmud]

The axial flow engines were a bit beyond the metalurgy of the day. These engines had a service life of only 4 to. 5 hours. For comparison the Merlin operated about 300 hrs . As Germany couldn't secure tungsten manganese and cobalt for advanced hight temperature alloys. They struggled with reliability on thier piston engines with exhast valve problems so the jet was just to mich of a reach.

[@Dronescapes]

They also had a scrap life of around 25 hours, but the issues were beyond metallurgical ones. Even years after the end of WW2, nobody could really find a use for them. The Soviets ended up discarding them, and opted to just purchase a few Whittle/Rolls Royce engines and simply cloned them (MiG15). The French gave it a try, together with German engineers, but could not make anything of it. They were as useless as they were at the very end of WW2 when, despite all the flaws, they were rushed into service. Call it useless propaganda.

[@eddiemerc1986]

My only wonder is this : what if the soviets fully surrendered back in '41 like anyone else? What if the nazis had plenty of time and resources to shape up these projects until the arrival of the allies in '44? Would they still considered as flaws? Dont think so.

[@Outlier999]

Ernst Udet was Germany's second-ranking air ace during WW1 with 62 confirmed victories. He was a great pilot but a bad administrator and manager.

[@RFGfotografie]

So we could have jet engines so much earlier then we got it now. Such a shame.

[@paulhunter6742]

Just imagine if majority of Luffwaffa Generals and Aircraft manufacturers in Germany could been same page with R & D and deployment new designs. Our history could turn out far differently.

[@user-cx2bk6pm2f]

Even in 1940 BMW was making overly complicated unreliable crap. Some things never change.