The WW2 Plane with the Most Bizarre Killing Technique
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 03. 2024
- As the Battle of Britain raged in the skies above the English Channel throughout the Summer and Fall of 1940, RAF Pilot Officer D.H. “Nobby” Clarke was ready to play his part in fighting off the Nazi invasion of his homeland, the last Allied hope in Europe. Day after day, British Hurricanes and Spitfires bravely dueled with German Messerschmitt Bf 109s, but Pilot Officer Clarke, prepared to serve King and country, was given a different kind of mission in a very different kind of aircraft.
At 5:30pm on September 26, Clarke was already airborne in his unwieldy Blackburn Roc, which had shown itself to be ineffective as a fighter but made for a trusty search and rescue aircraft, when he received a report of British airmen being shot down off the coast of the Isle of Wight. With intrepid gunner Sergeant Hunt in tow, Clarke bounded towards the search area, determined to arrive on time to rescue his countrymen from the chilly waters below.
Arriving on the scene, the pair desperately scanned the ocean for survivors, their eyes straining against the rapidly encroaching darkness. 45 minutes passed, with no luck. The only other sign of life was the faint outline of a friendly Swordfish seaplane in the distance, probably engaged in a similar search and rescue mission.
But as the two aircraft drew nearer, Clarke noticed something was amiss. The size, the markings-it just didn't add up. Going in for a closer look, his suspicions were confirmed: they had stumbled upon a German Heinkel He 59 seaplane, out to save its own downed comrades.
Clarke’s awkward and slow-moving Roc was all he had, and he was about to put it to the test in what would become one of World War 2’s most bizarre showdowns.
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas. - Auta a dopravní prostředky
The Roc could have been the world's best fighter. If only they had thought of it back in 1918
Does anyone else feel a bit uneasy, at the thought of two SEARCH AND RESCUE aircraft about to try to KILL each other, before they try to do their rescuing. I have read that the RAF considered German SAR aircraft fair game. But to my mind, it seems like shooting at medics!
The German crews had a habit of shooting British pilots. Aircraft were easier to replace than pilots
No honor. 😮
Do share your service record
@sharzadgabbai4408 Nice.
War is hell. In 1940 the German SAR were also spotting convoys etc.
I’m highly sceptical of the claim that these aircraft carried out bombing missions in 1946. They were slow, but not THAT slow! 😂
1946? A year after war's end!? 😮
I caught that too but figured Nah, I heard it wrong. 😆
Yeah, He's One Of Those A**holes Who Deliberately Does That To Increase The Comment Count.
@eddiebruv Yes, at approx 8:02 the voice says, "June 1946."
They left on the mission before the war in Europe finished but couldn’t be called back 🤷🏼 entirely plausible………….
I do rely on Dark and Felton amongst others to provide war stories no matter how obscure or minor of which I have never heard. I'm always learning something new about WWII and other military subjects from them.
Dark is the worst source for historical accuracy
It is always wise when researching or watching "historic" themed shows as bias is a real problem and lazy researchers will present as facts things they read about in a book, the book itself was written decades after the fact by an author who heard about it in a pub, from the 3rd cousin twice removed of a guy who knew someone who was having his hair cut next to a guy who had overheard a rumour on the bus.
Yeah, I trust Dr. Felton too. He educates me.
I RELY on Dr. Felton.
Dark is an often comical amusement theater.
Interesting photos, little more.
'The fat electrician' is also good at spinning military yarns. 'Drachinifel' is a must for maritime history. 'Australian Military Aviation History' does great air warfare docs. 'Waterline Stories' too, but that less military stuff. Same with 'Big Old Boats'. 'Military History Visualised', 'Military Aviation History' are fantastic. You can't go passed 'The Tank Museum' and 'The Australian Armour and Artillery Museum' for tank stuff. Plus there's 'The History Guy' and 'World War Two' (prob the best day by day recounting of the entire conflict, as well as series about the lead up and the aftermath). 'Real Time History', 'Oversimplified', 'War Stories', 'Yarnhub', 'Willy Cuz War Films', 'The Armchair Historian', 'Warographics' and 'World at War'(thats got a heap of great WW2 doc series). Lost Battlefields with Tino Struckmann and WW2 History Hunter and WW2 Metal Detecting for channels that actually visit the real obscure sites and do proper excavations. Of course, there's Time Team Official and Time Team Classics for that Tony Robinson ASMR guilty pleasure. That's my short list from over a decade crawling through the sordid, dank effluent infused sewer tunnels that is youtube lol. Hope that helps!
Also, look up 'World at War' from the mid 70s. It used to be the real benchmark for tv WW2 doc series. It still excels today. It's on youtube on various channels. Its well worth searching up and watching in its entirety).
Blackburn felt that streamlining was just a fade.
Such a silly fad. Where did Supermarine ever get with following it?
@@sparky4878Woolston.
Turret fighters were rather useless in real combat. On o9ccasion they scored kills of fighters who didn't realize the turret was there. But once the German pilots recognized them, they'd approach from behind and BELOW, and shoot them down. Also, the turret fighters had very poor performance...most Luftwaffe bombers could run away from the Roc.
Someone on a bicycle could probably do the same.
How many incorrect aircraft types can YOU see in this video? 😂
I spotted a Pterodactyl, a Tie fighter, Icarus, Superman and Airwolf amongst the footage
I thought it was a competition, spot the wrong aeroplane :)
Video editing and proofreading is not one of Dark Skies strengths
Hurricane, Defiant, Vulcan, wheelbarrow, no.122 bus to Lewisham, ham sandwich, Marilyn Monroe...
Well after seeing the Mustang I gave up
Contrary to your comments, the turreted fight was a horrible idea which was proven out in combat. The Defiant was no better than the Roc in combat with other fighters. Once the German’s figured out Defiants weren’t Hurricanes, the Defiants became easy pickings. This type of “fighter” aircraft is only viable as a night fighter where the pilot can maneuver his gunner into an excellent firing position beneath the enemy bomber.
I recall seeing on another channel that the main idea behind turret fighters was that it was very difficult to get guns firing directly forward of the aircraft to bear on a turning opponent: you effectively had to turn inside him. The ability to train turret-mounted guns on an enemy who was constantly 30 degrees above the pilot's gunsight was theorised to be an advantage. The weight and aerodynamic penalties meant it didn't work out that way, and later it became clear that boom and zoom was preferable to dogfighting anyhow. Still, I'm a little surprised that no one experimented with putting something like a 20mm canon in the rear fuselage to fire over the cockpit at a shallow angle (rather than schragemusick- style) , to fire inside the turn of a plane being pursued.
The concept behind the turreted fighter was that they would be efficient at shooting down enemy bombers. And so they would've been, if the bombers obligingly flew straight and level, and didn't have any fighter escort.
Thanks for this Airplane History Tabloid Channel.
G'day,
You got the Bristol Fighter & Hawker Hart & Demon backwards.
The RFC tried to fly the Brisfit to use the Rear-Gunner offensively and they were shot to ribbons of bleeding burning mincemeat.
So they started flying it as a fixed Forward-firing Fighter - with a Rear-Gunner to protect against attack from behind ; and the Bristol F-2b then BEGAN to be known as the
Bristol Fighter.., because that worked.
The Hart & Demon were
Light Day Reconnaissance Bombers, with a Vickers K- Gun on a Scarff Mounting on the Observer/Gunner's Cockpit.
The Blackburn Roc was a Royal Naval Fleet Air Arm copy of a Boulton & Paul Defiant...
Much as a Fairey Fulmar was actually only a Fairey Battle with a retractable Tailhook retrofitted & bolted on ; under it's Bumfeathers...
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
There really wasn't much of a choice. At 200mph, it takes about 50 seconds to go 3 miles. So first you have to assume the other plane has seen you also, and then you get into mission priority.
Unfortunately a downed pilot, who if you're lucky enough to find...may...be alive, comes in second to an enemy plane that IS definitely capable of shooting you and others down.
That's the reality of war.
The Blackburne Roc, the Boulton-Paul Defiant and other "upward firing" aircraft were a product of early thirties design, when engine power was quite limited, and interception times, to altitude, were quite abysmal. The bombers would be landing back at base by the time challengers could rise to confront (Zeppelin days?), so, we fire upwards! The Germans ended up using the same technique themselves, no turrets, before the party was over! Can't recall if the pilots here had access to guns also, if not, how frustrating, having to maneuver the aircraft for another to shoot with these turreted ones! tRICKy!
IIRC the upward firing cannons in a German night fighter were activated by the pilot using a clever optical device to aim.
It is a pity that so many of these documentaries have incorrect image material. For the rest they are interesting.
They put a disclaimer in the description. Often there isn't 10 minutes of footage available. I dunno why they don't just use stills and War Thunder like other channels do. It's an aesthetic and editing choice I assume.
Footage of any kind is not easily available and trying to find footage of a certain aircraft is like trying to find a needle in a haystack thanks to all the people that go to great lengths to bring us these images ❤
So that we never forget the sacrifices that all the allied soldiers made otherwise your first language might have been German ❤
The Limeys knew how to sometimes make unbelievably hideous looking aircraft.
You should see some of the French ones.
After the war, those same guys worked in our car manufacturing industry.
😂😂😂
@@patrickporter1864 ... if they were as hideous as FROG 🐸 cars from the '50s ... they must have been fugly as a dog turd.
They make hideous cars too - the D Type Jaguar for example
Brilliant! Thanks for posting.
Tongue in cheek, I hope.
The 196 mph fighter😂😂
This is where the famous saying: "It flies like a rock" originates
... and the chap they were supposed to rescue?
Who knows; if he was lucky another aircraft helped out. The terrible part of this story was... these SAR missions didn't _need_ to engage. They were both rescue aircraft, and the equivalent of hospital ships - they weren't supposed to be fired upon. But (supposedly) Nazi fanaticism led one of the gunners on the Heinkel to open up on Roc, and at that point all bets were off. An engagement of obsolete aircraft, to little effect overall... except, of course, for the poor chap they were sent out to find.
There were numerous floating "hotels" designed for downed airmen, but you'd need to be lucky to be downed close enough to swim to one. Depending on the area of sea around Britain there is a low survival rate with extended submersion in the water of as little as 45 mins. In much of the north hypothermia is expected to set in within 30mins.
@@boanerges5723 Those Hotels were few and far between and little better than being stranded in the drink.
@@MrJest2if an enemy plane pursued you with guns trained on you, you bet you would open fire aswell. It's historical gaslighting to say it was Nazi fanatisim when most people in the wermacht and luftwaffe were not members the the nazy party.
@@NotABot_BOT_ Hence the "supposedly". We only have the aircrew's story to go on; for all we know the Brits opened fire first. Even history in living memory tends to be "fuzzy". War is a special kind of crazy Hell, and as long observed, the truth is the first causality.
Definitely gives me Paul Boulton defiant vibes lol
It used the same turret, not a Fraser-Nash.
Boulton Paul?
@@missasinenomineMichael Bolton ?
@@missasinenomine Boulton Paul Defiant, I think.
The Roc looked like the Boulton-Paul Defiant had a hot night with a Blackburn Skua. Still, they all played their part and had successes. Sleeve-valve engines were very quiet compared to other types - radial and in-line. Least likely dogfight? What about the Wellesley versus Caproni's in the Med.!?
If the Roc ever killed anything I’d have thought it would have needed a mid-collision. Slow and underpowered, there was even a version on floats, which would have had trouble getting out of its own way. The turret fighter concept was trying to refight the previous war. Interestingly, despite Air Ministry advancing the No-allowance shooting concept, they rejected the evidence that the Luftwaffe was shooting from beneath RAF bombers (‘Schräge Musik’, [slanting music, slang for jazz], two cannon pointing up at about 80 degrees ) which achieved the same thing without the unnecessary weight of a traversing turret.
The most bizarre killing technique were the purpose-built Japanese Bohka Bombs. Manned cruise missles (except, of course, the term cruise missle hadn't yet been coined). Only one confirmed kill in the whole war.
Whatever works with whatever you got.
1946? You know something we don't?
These were built at Boulton Paul Aircraft in Wolverhampton as they also built the Defiant.
In other words; it failed to kill a relic biplane bomber, on several minutes of broadside....
Total crap like many of the planes this company made. My father was a royal navy pilot and nobody wanted to fly it. Its was a flying coffin
Like the Bouton Paul Defient that was mistaken for a Hurricane
I would be much more impressed if the Allied pilot chose to let the German aircraft continue its mission to save its downed flyers, while the Allied pilot did the same.
Other way around - the German seaplane first attacked the Roc
You mean the mission to recover downed aircrew and return them to their units?
5:07, Blackburn were designing the Roc in the west midlands? Really? They didn't have anything in the area. According to Wikipedia, Bolton Paul designed it for them, in Wolverhampton.
Blackburn were at Brough, near Hull.
Roc/Defiant..the misidentified 'Swordfish'. I know there is not a lot of footage of the Roc, but at least mention you are using footage of other planes. Otherwise, a good documentary, well done.
@ 8:08: June 1946??? A little late the party, chum? (Tip: always review and edit before posting.)
I am almost sure dark does zero research or post editing
The French being bombed by the RAF in 1946 shaking their fists to the air and screaming “what le fuq?!” 😂
Blackburn is in Lancashire, not Yorkshire.
Brits: Let’s call it a Rock and then expect it to fly!
The rest of the world: 🦗 🦗
Arabian nights, folks. Sinbad the sailor stories ring any bells. Roc was a monster eagle.
The video mentions a Swordfish seaplane. The Swordfish was a carrier based biplane torpedo bomber, not a seaplane. Perhaps the narrator meant a Supermarine Walrus, a biplane flying boat used by the RAF for air-sea rescue.
The Swordfish were also built as seaplanes, equipped with twin floats. The second prototype was refitted with these as part of its development program and the final pre-production aircraft was completed with them. A number were used, with floats, on battleships and battlecruisers as reconnaissance aircraft: HMS Repulse, HMS Renown, HMS Warspite etc. The Wikipedia has more detail and includes a photograph of a floatplane on HMS Malaya.
Wrong. A number of Swordfish were equipped with floats in order to operate as catapult aircraft. One from HMS Warspite sank a U-Boat during the Battle of Narvik.
2:44
Do I understand you to say that you’ve never hunted quail or dove in your life? Have you never fired a gun?
Unless your moving target is either moving directly toward or away from you, aiming DIRECTLY at it will always result in a miss.
All other shooting at moving targets IS deflection shooting.
You would still have to lead the targets, putting guns in a turret doesn't speed the bullets up to the speed of light.
exactly who ever wrote the script for this vid knows nothing about guns ballistics or physics if anything shooting from a turret is harder because you have to take not of the direction you are shooting opposed to your direction of travel
You would still have to apply lead when shooting from a turret at a moving target, so deflection shooting. The gun convergence distance would be less critical than wing mounted guns.
Blackburn. The Chrysler of aircraft
Aerodynamic windshield!
The dive bomber version the skua was faster than the fighter version the roc.
You surely know how to tell a tale...
How come they never made a float plane with retractable floats? Seems like you could build the fusalage to contain the floats and build them more aerodynamically so they could maybe hang out a bit. It would improve performance tremendously.
There have been a couple, none to sucessful production. But Blackburn was one of them, had to wait for the Buccaneer before they finally made a decent bit of kit.
Allies? I'm afraid the Doughboy was still not participating.
There were other allies involved in September 1940.
@@nightjarflying the commonwealth troop contributions?
Designation shooting is still needed, even for current lasers.
Deflection is the word you are seeking
This would be a far different story If someone waggled their wings to signal no ill intent and point to the waters so both can go rescue their own men from drowning.
turrett fighters wouldnt have been the shit show they were had they have had forward firing guns
With a suitable sight the turret guns, aimed above the propellor and firing forwards could act as fixed forward firing guns by use of the no deflection technique whereby the sight allows for the fall of the shot as it flies towards the target. It was a successfully trialled technique by the RAF but never put to use despite the Defiant, at least, having a setting to fix the turret thus and the pilot provided with a gun firing option. The turret fighter was based upon the assumption that German bombers would have to fly from German bases and their fighters did not have the range to escort them. The turret allowed for extended firing times at the target, not the fleeting pass of fixed forward firing guns. It made sense at the time. No one expected France to fall. The reason for putting it on a Skua airframe to make the Roc and not Defiant was down to speed of entry into service and commonality with the strike Skuas on board ship. Essentially the same airframe and power plant so easing spares and maintenance. The Roc was a useful dive bomber though and active over France alongside the Swordfish, Albacores, Skuas and Hectors. The part played in the defence of Dunkirk by British dive bombers is rarely mentioned just as the the tactical bombing by Lysanders is hardly heard of. Even the Roc carried the same bomb load as the later ‘Hurribomber’ and could place them more accurately. Still an abysmally slow device nevertheless.
So, basically the ROC was almost obsolete at it's very beginning !!
Typically british. No feelings for the pilots.
Jeez! I thought this channel couldn't get any worse, but this melange of inaccurate information and incorrect images really plumbs the depths.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
I've always loved turret fighters always reminds of some plane from Tailspin chasing around the SeaDuck
would've been great as a proto gunship, using its quad mount turret in a pylon turn to destroy ground targets
How do bullets float?
😂
Strange encounter, yes....but not as strange as the time a Dachshund in Oldenburg, Germany attempted to bring down a fully grown elk! That also ended in a draw.
so a SAR is going to fight a SAR - effectively not being able to rescue people..
What a cool story 👍
6:14 interesting '40s grooming choice, forerunner of the Mohawk?
A bit pedantic, I know, but these things are important:
1. NOT a Hinkel, but a Heinkel.
2. Part of your footage is also NOT a ROC but a Lysander. Pay attention!
I LOVE Dark skies!
9:38 It is 7,92 not 7.99
Imho Roc wasn't a bad plane. It was product of faulty expectation and requirement for " universal combat plane". In effect it wasn't best at any task , it was barely acceptable at the moment.
Perfect delivery! Great content!
I can smell what the Rock is cooking.
This is like watching the Amazon guy and the FedEx bro shoot at each other on the freeway or something.
Sadly we still didn't learn that we only have ich other no politician will ever care about us ,we are just a number for them !
Bits of Lockheed Hudson turret, Westland Lysanders, Fairey Fulmar & Hurricane cockpits, historical footage needs to be accurate.
Like so many. things, sounded great in theory, let the pilot fly the plane, let the gunner so the shooting. IIRC both the Defiant and the Roc were underpowered and not as maneuverable.
The Germans came up with "Schrage Musik"-"Jazz Music" for their night fighters-Me110, e.g.
Guns were angled so the pilot could approach a bomber from below.
Ot is my feeling that you need to re-edit the clip as the order is a bit strange.
It isn't emphasised enough in current day accounts of the Battle of Britain that so many pilots weren't equipped with Spitfires or Hurricanes. They threw EVERYTHING up there - no reserves.
70 years ago, at the age of 10, I made a scratch balsa model of the Roc, using the "Spotters Book of Aircraft" and a home-made scale rule. Loved the look,of that aircraft. And the Skua. And, of course, the Stringbag. And...
The Germans should have done this against the bomber formations instead of the "schräge musik". A 20 mm quad ball turret on a JU-88 and the fighters only care for the escorts.
It's pronounced 'skewer' named after the Skua sea bird, as was the Roc.
Never heard the bird pronounced that way😂
You have now. @@philipbahr7410
Also, the German plane was a Heinkel (think of Heineken), not a Hinkel.
You have now. @@philipbahr7410
Poor old Detling is now a housing estate/industrial estate. A sad end.
I had a close encounter with the only Lysander that I have ever seen!
Heard o Schraeder Music? The sound made by the two 20 mm cannons placed vertically on top of the 110 night fighters already equipped with (poor) radars? Something Lancaster crews hated to hear.
Schräge Musik [or Schrägwaffen] wasn't named for the sound, it's a reference to Nazi maligned jazz & the unnatural angle of the weapons, it didn't just use 20 mm cannon, it didn't just use the Bf 110 & it wasn't placed vertically - normally it was angled forwards somewhat.
Lack of engine power -
Y'all need to read Chris Chant and Bill Gunstan, not Wiki. The "logical principles" behind the Roc were on par with the junk science that says if you had a sensitive enough microphone you can still pick up Lincolns Gettysburg Address echo's. Stick 1000 lbs of turret and gunner in an already underpowered plane. This was about the only Roc kill of the war. Some context is needed. There was a doctrine in vogue in Europe in 30's of the Jagflueger Fighter Destroyer aircraft. A nice idea, best embodied in the Beaufighter.4 cannons. Make an airplane that can toss enough lead to kill anything in it's sights. Including the gunship B17. It just didn't work as a single engine fighter was always nimble enough to to shoot JF out of the sky. The concept did work in the end as nightfighters.
Why didn't the Navy just use Defiants ? modified for carrier use ? far sleeker, far faster. Roc was just so archaic.
So what happened to the pilot in the water?
He's still awaiting rescue. He was last seen near the Azores a couple of years ago.
did turret rotate from aircraft's engine?
Hydraulically powered by an electrically-driven pump.
Yes. The gunner could only enter or exit it the turret was pointed the right way. If the engine failed, or the aircraft was shot down, the gunner was often trapped in the turret. The affected the Defiant as well. Small wonder such aircraft were unpopular with their crews.
Okay but like why only a turret and no forward guns? Couldn't they fit 2 - 4 .303 machine guns anywhere in the wings or nose? How did nobody invent a P-61 like turret/schrage musik interceptor earlier.
Even I find narration very poor
I thought I spotted a Millennium Falcon ther….oops…nope…something in my eye. Sorry…
This site has let me down. Dark etc was real good stuff then they seem to have run a ground in the name dept. Click bait names. Most hated airplane. Most terrifying gun...etc etc. Most lame names contest you win. Dont dumb down your history.
And ESSENTIALLY zero research, pulling derp out of their arse and spreading pure nonsense instead of doin the slightest research..
The guns don't get more accurate when you turn it to the side. The gunner is just better at leading the target
Hahaha but don't all gangstas turn their guns on their sides?
describing German aircraft as a Hinckle just made me want to watch Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator.
Also wasn't the standard German machine round 7.92mm and not as stated in this video as 7.99mm?
Dark skies. Why do you keep showing a Lysander?
Because he knows sweet fa about his subject matter.
I wonder what you would say if a German fighter shot down a British search and rescue attempt.
The Heinkel He 59 seaplane fired on the Blackburn Roc first.
So, did anyone ever actually look for downed pilots?
German text? WOW!
But: metric units of measurement, at least as a text overlay would be great!
The germans got wise ro the defifantsand they were shot down in drovesand eventually withdrawn from service😮
The Luftwaffe were not, and are not, stupid.
A lot of errors in this vid and some plain bs.
Hinkle?
Herr Hinkle,ask Charlie Chaplin
Zielen mit Vorhalt, mit Vorhalt... nicht Ablenkungsschießen. :-/
"Turret fighter" i think u mean scout aircraft.
1946?
The guy with the teeth.
Ich liebe KI. Es strotzt nur so von idiotischen Fakten. Schade um die richtigen Aussagen dieses Flugzeuges.
Why do the Rocs have such an ugly pilot's windscreen??
It looks too upright and not very aerodynamic. If they leaned the windscreen back a bit, they could surely gain a few more miles per hour for its top speed.
at 8.08 you say the RAF bombed in June 1946 !!! I think you mean 1940.
Stop with the inaccuracies! It took part in a bombing mission in 1946??? The war ended in 1945. This is supposed to be a history video...lets get the dates right.
Fyi, its pronounced "Hainkel".... still a nice video.
Thats AI for you. A terribly frustrating way to add commentary nowadays.
No front guns how do decisions like that get made, the extra cost in comparison to how many planes don't get shot down and how many enemies do, if u Wana win u make the fastest most maneuverable, best guns , best visibility, and teach clever tactics, not to mention some down ward guns with glass to see, you could pull up and fly above them with them either following u or focus on another target thinking that no planes can fire on planes under neither other planes,
And the front guns should have like 8 or 10 guns 4 straight shooting 2 slightly upwards 2 more upwards a bit more than the other 2 and 2 aimed slightly down, so many times they are making hard turns and are barely out of their target zone if u had 4 guns aimed upwards at two levels u would have significant kill count, if they were taught to be wise with there bullets they wouldn't use any more bullets than any other because they would hit theor target by probably 2x or 3x
If u put the biggest turbo charged engine with the best guns and most maneuverable u probably reduce plane loss by 50% or more which more than covers the price of turbo and extra guns. It's retarded where they get the logic behind their decisions. They probably worried about material and man power costs, trying to eliminate things that they can get away with
Which again is stupid from a business aspect, u make the best planes consistently you will sell more planes you will get every new contract they won't consider buying from another factory
They will just listen and approve your decisions and not argue because u been making the best planes the whole war, you can also ask the price u want and get that price especially when they compare it to how many planes from the other maker were shot down in such a short period of time and lost most missions.