Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Can you solve the bomber failure that almost lost WWII?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 06. 2022
- WWII bombers were getting shot down by Nazis left and right. Here's how they almost lost the war with a logic failure.
Follow:
♪ / smartnonsense
🌻 / smart.nonsense
🐦 / smartnonsense
#SmartNonsense #DylanJardon #HenryBelcaster
More stories 👉 SmartNonsense.com 🌈
Us navy?
Mathematician spotted it.
Not US it was British
Does rainbow symbolize something?
This was a british fighter thing not us bomber thing
Rookie mistake: They used a spitfire to do strategic bombing lmao
used a fighter for ground attack lmaaaao
"I only had to rearm 50 times"
@@ohioanbutt_ticklingbanditstill better than me-177 for ground attack
@@pigeon.and.pigeon better then using a fucking biplane thats for sure
imagine mounting a 20mm on a biplane
more specifically a mk xivc
"American Bombers"
Proceeds to show a spitfire through the entire video:
And started it with the U.S. Navy made a logical falicy
neither American nor a bomber.
@@A._.Neill26fr, not sure what happened in the editing department
Yea not everybodies a hyper-attentive history geek@@darracqboy
And P47's in some shots aswell
The Spitefire Mk. IX was the most effective American bomber during the 2nd world war. What an amazing feat, it was.
*1st world war.
The lack of knowledge some people have is astounding
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
No clearly it was used in the US war of independence and took part in burning down the White House
The French and Indian war* your lack of knowledge makes me cringe
@@APXWOXThe Crimean War* I find your lack of knowledge disturbing
ah yes, the spitfire mk ix. my favorite us bomber!
It’s not an IX though, it’s a griffon. probably a Mk. XIVc considering it's not full bubble-canopy design but a Griffin Spitfire.
@@C0ldB3er ur right
If battlefield V has taught me anything, every kind of plane is a bomber if you try hard enough
@Digital_Soldier_31 it can bomb yes. I just gotta resupply every minute
*us navy bomber
Why are you using a British fighter for a video about American bomber planes?
we all in it together baby 🫶
Because it's a British story being claimed by Americans
@Peaker’s Lab the dud probably doesn't know anything and made bad content
If there weren’t markings I would’ve thought the fighter was a P47
@Peaker’s Lab Just like U571...
"No armor best armor"-warthunder players
I can confirm, they can’t hit you if they go straight through you
Remember when the b-17 was unstoppable
Japanese zeros after being set on fire for the 5th time: Yes
@@pieterdeliho1492 i play mostly zero, you feel like god while in turn fight. But most of the time you feel like duck waiting to get shot haha
See this man gets it… all theses other dummy’s adding armour smh
Classic logic mistake that could’ve cost them the war: Using a spitfire as a strategic bomber 💀
“The us planes needed more protection”
Proceeds to show a British spitfire.
dude the spitfire was the best american bomber of ww2 whatcha on about. (jk)
I think he meant to say Allies Planes. This same thing was also implemented in the British army i believe.
Give credit to the man that told them the logic was wrong, Albert Wald. Note: previous name was incorrect.
true good catch. thanks Marian 🙏
Still haven't given credit
He was Polish
Sorry, It was Abraham Wald (Jewish Statistician from Hungary).
@@IsmailV88 who the f cares bruh, doubt Marian actually cares cause he dead 🤦♂️
You using a Spifire. It’s a British fighter. You said the US Navy? What are you talking about?
And a spitfire is a fighter not a bomber
Yeah lol
The story was actually originally about the British. So technically he isn’t wrong.
@@pickle4422 but he was wrong because he said us navy and us military
@@pickle4422 why use a fighter when talking about bombers
Lets not over exaggerate, this would in no way have costed them the war.
Exactly the comment I was looking for
That’s right. The allies only started bombing when germany already practically lost the war
@@justusP9101The Allies are not the Americans. They're the Allies.
Frenchies and brits targeted Germany years before US even joined.
@@justusP9101Not really, the most allied nations were bombing Germany in the early parts of the war, and the US joined in by the middle of the war
The US navy “shows british Spitfire aircraft”
The red dots in the cockpit, returned home?
American bias tbh
@@SweetSniper5197 lmao golden comment
Smartest American
The cockpit should be red already
Maybe that's where all the blood drained out
Didn't fool me, because I've seen this chart 1000 times
However you probably normally see it on twin-engined American bombers, such as the B-26, not single-engined British fighters like the Spitfire such as this video used. The dots in the video are in the wrong spot for the Spitfire.
Oh hell nah, I just realised that you commented this over a year ago. How was your past year?
@@tetronaut88yeah lol, the center dots got put right at the cockpit
Mistake, they added armour to someone elses planes
“Where would you put the metal?”
Me: everywhere
if you put metal armor everywhere, that would increase the weight, so that means less speed. speed was a large priority in 1945 due to the very fast german messershmit 262, the worlds first jet fighter. this mistake could actually have lost ww2.
@@goobero343 not really. The 262 had a grand total of about 2 seconds of TOT after entering an attack run. About half a second to the target, 1 second to fire, and half to escape.
Thats the whole reason the R4M (not really successful) was developed. They also were getting shot down in droves, and lack of fuel grounded many.
@@goobero343no offense but the 262 was effectively useless because Germany couldn’t actually build many and the were used primarily in non combative roles. And Americans prodution is so insane compared to Germany this would even be close to war loosing
For D-day, the USAAF put heavy metal plates in the bottom of the gliders we used if the passengers were high ranking officers. When the tow planes and gliders separated the "gliders" plummeted into the ground like meteors!
@@goobero343 Say that to the F6F Hellcat. Those bloody planes could take a serious beating from the Mitsubishi Zeros.
No I wasn't fooled, my years of playing war thunder have finally paid off.
Warthunder causes me extreme suffering, I’m even in a squadron
@@jonsed90 same bro
it's whne you say things like that, you know, you're too deep to come back, hahaa
IT CAUSE ME PTSD
@@jonsed90 I have it even worse, I *_AM_* the squadron leader
Wait a minute backup for a second . US navy in the European theater? Planes were flying out of land based strips in England controlled by the army. And if I remember correctly the reason why our bombers were getting blown out of the sky Because we didn't have fighter's that could escort them to Germany. They had to turn around Halfway there.
Carrier-based aircraft were extremly important in the atlantic theater. Britain operated 7 aircraft carriers in 1939 which came to be used extensively. The USN-aviation was not as prevalent in the atlantic theater as the british (at least in the early stages) but it still operated massive ammounts of carrier bound planes. Concerning the lack of fighter escorts/air superiority: This is kinda true for the earlier parts of the war, but by the end air superiority was established and british/US-american aircraft dominated the skies over europe and the waters which surround it. The atlantic theaters carrier operations are often overlooked due to the focus on the pacific theater by many (probably due to the most famous naval battles happening over there). Many of the aircraft used by the US were either fighters or dive bombers (helldivers and dauntless mostly, i think) meant to establish and maintain naval and air superiority. But carrier-bound bombers and transport aircraft also played a big part.
@@toomnLP You stated British carriers. The video stated US carriers. Name the US carriers that were in the European Theater?
Some would still return home so this would apply to those bombers that had bullet holes
That’s the fun part they weren’t getting blown out of the sky
@@bige9830 This story is originally about British planes, not American.
Same thing almost happened to helmets in WW1. The brass realized that more injury reports were filled out after soldiers were equipped with helmets. They found it odd but realized that these were just the soldiers that were surviving instead of dying.
Bro that is a British spitfire
Him: US planes
video: Spitfire
Navy? The bombers in Europe were operating under the Army Air Force, there were no American carriers in the atlantic
You got a source bud cause that sounds like bullshit
@@Automaticguns1 What part of it sounds like bs? The bombers just don't fit onto an aircraft carrier, the runway's too short. As for the "no America carriers", why would there be? Britain and Poland had navies that did the job just fine.
@@Automaticguns1 He's right. Navy bombers only flew off of American carriers or
islands in the South Pacific. At no time during the war were American carriers near Europe.
@@Automaticguns1 calls him an idiot, refuses to elaborate, leaves.
Wasp was in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Ranger stayed in the Atlantic.
Every single visual you used for "American bombers" were British Spitfire fighter planes
hmm yes my favourite bomber, the spitfire
Someone saw the survivorship bias video that was widely recommended to people 2-3 days ago
"did it fool you ??" Me: sandwich eating noises intensives
Same
Bomber fleet. Shows fighter. US planes. Shows spitfire. Add metal to the engine. Bangs a hammer everywhere else except the engine.
I’d put the protection where they aren’t shot, because that’s the important part now.
Wow this is the first video I've seen on CZcams about survivor bias thanks for gracing us with the original content.
that’s why i’m here
Damn you must have been in the wrong side of CZcams all along. I've seen it hundreds of times.
@@dylanjardon oof. I think y'all missed the sarcasm bruh.
Meanwhile Japan:
Armor? What the fuck is that? What we need is fire power and mobility!
Naw, kamikazing the shit outta everyone 672 MPH.
To be fair, Japanese tried to add armor on their planes during the war, but the specifics of the theatre made it harder for them. Take for example self-sealing fuel tanks: they tried to add them on the land-based aircrafts, but it took a lot of time for them to start installing them on the naval ones, because it will dramatically affect the plane’s range and to the lesser extent agility
It's only a myth that they actually wrongly armoured the aircraft, and your claim that it nearly cost the bomber squadrons is incorrect. Even the most basic of engineers understands that armouring bare metal isn't doing any good if your leaving the cockpit exposed. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
This is only a hypothetical. No engineer would legitimately go and make useless parts of the plane more protected. Perhaps a not very skilled statistician could make the mistake, but the engineers would straighten him out.
Honestly, I am getting tired of these BS exaggeration vids.
Is he seriously trying to go and suggest the nation’s most gifted and talented minds were very much nearly fooled by something that is basic statistics?
I’m going to put this under “Do not recommend me this channel”.
@@Justin-ui5ti Exactly, shorts content is driving me insane
Bro had the guts to say "Nazi Germany" 💀💀💀
Bro didnt even have to see the whole vid we've all seen this they put armor on the parts that weren't hit
I literally just watched a guy explaining this to his class
yes he’s a G of a teacher
No he’s not, cus the class is left knowing that the spitfire is a US bomber, but it’s a British fighter.
@@darracqboy Can't use something as an example nowadays?
@@alwexandria why not use a b 17 as an example?
To some extent, minor armor around the pilot might still be a good idea. It’s pretty quick to build a new plane, not that easy to build a new pilot.
Knew this for a while now. The guy that pointed it out saved many lives
I already knew this the guy who convinced them to do it was a hero.
Warthunder players: “My logic is beyond your understanding”
armor the cockpit, you can replace or fix a damn good aircraft but you cant replace a damn good pilot.
Sir our planes our getting shot down, armor the cockpits so the pilot survives, you can’t really survive a plane crash and then hiding behind enemy lines consistently
@@kylezdancewicz7346sure but if the plane can get back to friendly territory and then you bail that’s better than dying. Frankly the evidence supporting armoring the cockpit is that plenty of successful planes put armor there.
@@Lyle_K I know but this comment ignores the fact that if the plane goes down the pilot is probably dying, because a ocean, crashing a heavy object into the ground at high speeds and hoping the squishy thing inside it survives, being behind enemy territory, you know where the enemy aircraft and anti air are most likely to be.
*knocks on the wing of a spitfire*
"yup. there's your problem. not a bomber."
*instantly promoted to general*
They were fooled by the survivorship bias, but they also listened to advice from the Statistical Research Group at Columbia University, where Abraham Wald gave his analysis of the issue.
Bro I figured it out. I’m so proud of myself yet it means nothing. 😂
No your a war tactician master now
@@jarvis6253 it’s just common sense, add it to the places where there are stress points like the wing connections + vitals of the airplanes
Survivorship bias is the main reason the challenger blew up weirdly
"Who needs armor when you can kamikaze" - War Thunder Player
Truer words have never been spoken
It’s called the bomber problem at this point it’s a classic thought experiment. FYI the military wanted to put the armor not metal on the areas that got shot but economists told them otherwise.
It’s actually called „survivorship bias“. It is just „the bomber problem“ because it has something to do with bombers. No one calls it that.
@@nanolog522 the example is the bomber problem
The bomber problem is not a thing. As previously stated, the topic of the video is survivorship bias. You're probably confusing this with the bomber gap that was a belief during the cold war that the Soviet bomber fleet was considerably larger than the US bomber fleet.
@@OB1canblowme no. I am talking about the common example used by professors to teach their students about survivorship bias that is called the bomber problem. It is based on this exact problem that the allied Air Force faced during WW2. The name of the example (the most commonly used one for survivorship bias btw) is the bomber problem. I get that the concept is survivorship bias but the topic of the video is literally on the bomber problem which showcases survivorship bias.
Btw, this is something economists learn in year 1 IB HL Econ let alone if you actually go to uni for it
"Maybe cost them the war"
I'm pretty sure that is a huge overstatement we still would've won but not without more losses
I'm very sure a bomber that fell from 30k ft going 200-400mph is great for telling what destroyed it
Heard this 1 million times already
Already knew this, I had to solve this in History class
Awesome
holy shit nearly everything you just said was wrong
probably the most famous example of 'Survivorship bias', during WW2, US military was about to reinforce the armor on the fuselage of a plane which had the most hits on surviving ones, and reduce the armor on the engine which had almost no hits.
Just when the mathematician, Abraham Wald, entered the field saying "Not so fast! What you should really do is add armor around the engines! What you are forgetting is that the aircraft that are most damaged don't return. You just don't see them."
Well, that's the well-known story. Was US military so incompetent for a mathematician to lecture them the engine is the real weak point of a plane?
Of course, it wasn't.
What US military actually wanted to know was much deeper and complicated than that, which can be summed up as :
Is it possible to get detailed information on downed aircrafts (How many hits they have sustained, where they were hit by which caliber, etc.), based only on information on aircrafts that returned back to airfield?
Wald provided formulas for that exact question, based on several assumptions.
For example, he claimed a 20mm hit on engine area is the most fatal event for a aircraft(53.4%), followed by a 7.92mm bullet hit on forward fuselage(19.4%)
Important thing is, these probability calculations are done without a single information on actual downed planes.
And it's pretty different from the simple picture of hit probabilities commonly used on survivorship bias (and in the meme). On extremely oversimplified example, if US military really used simple survivorship bias alone for reinforcing plane protection, it could have provided pilots with cannon-proof helmet because apparently no plane has made it back with a 20mm hit on its pilot's head.
apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA091073.pdf
www.ams.org/publicoutreach/feature-column/fc-2016-06
The planes shown in this video are spitfires
Add metal evenly, its called weight distribution
That would've made the aircraft too heavy to take off.
@@remkirkthegamer1157 just dont make it that heavy 💀
@@MrglipglopSo:
1. We want to add armour
2. We cannot add too much
3. The plane doesn’t need to be armoured in some places
By spreading the armour evenly, we waste protection on areas that don’t need to be armoured. This takes potential armour away from the areas that do need to be protected. Also remember that in air combat speed is very important, and more armour is more weight is less speed. At times designers would remove armour to gain speed, like in the American Kittyhawk aircraft.
@@carrott36 aint reading your book lil bro keep the yapping to a minimum
@@Mrglipglop 30s is how long it will take to read that. If you want to seem right or better than others, that there is not the way to do it.
Love this. And while your right about the survivor ship bias, as many in the comments pointed out your showing the British spitfire fighter planes, and not an American bomber planes like the anerican version of the B-17.
"american bombers"
proceeds to show spitfire with raf badge...
Navy 💀 thought it was the Air Force 💀
The air force was founded in 1947
My grandpa was a bottom turret gunner on a B-17. He flew dozens of missions and surprisingly survived every single one. If you don’t know the chances of not surviving being in a bomber crew were very high and even higher chances of not surviving being a bottom gunner. When my family and I were cleaning out his house after he passed, he had a couple boxes with a lot of his old army files. The files were all mission briefings/orders/overviews of the missions he was apart of. A lot of them had the classic ‘TOP SECRET’ red stamp on them. He was a good man and I wish I was able to know him more when I was older so I could learn more about his time during WW2 and just his life in general.
Respect to those who served. With all due respect however, according to 1944 reports from the 8th airforce, the ball turret gunner had the lowest casualty rate. Not downplaying your grandpa’s achievements, but just letting you know :D
Yup, really woulda cost the whole war. Great assessment
“Bomber problem”
*proceeds to show a spitfire*
This reminds a politic on my country that wanted to abolish the birth by cesarean section, except in case were the life was on risk
His argument was biased, he said that the mortality was higher than normal births, but he didn't take into account that the majority of cesarean operations occur in high-risk pregnancies
Or another example of bias, the amount of Sherman destroyed, the defenders of the tigers, panthers and panzers use that argument. But they don't realize that were more Shermans than any german model on the war (also, the invent that Sherman can penetrate the german armor, but ehen 75 mm canon can do it, now imagine a 105 mm)
Actually, logically speaking, you want to add armour to the places where there is fuel, components, or crew. everything else is, by definition, expendable.
no fuel, no way to come home, no engine/controls, same, and no crew, again, same. so forget mapping out bullet holes! thats what i say.
Reminds me of when they were having a huge spike in injuries during ww1 right after they added steel helmets only to realize the injuries would have been deaths without them
"Protection to the plane so they didn't get shot down" **proceeds to show bullet holes on cockpit**
Ive heard this damn history so many times lately on yt. Its like when Kyle talked about the demon core, but instead of memes we just get the same video over and over again
This has the same logic as "we interviewed 100 russian roulette players and they all survived thus we can confirm it is 100% safe to play"
Logically, you want to protect the fuel tanks the most because they could be punctured and ignite (tracer or incendiary rounds were common)
"Bombers"
Continues to show a spitfire (British fighter)
And a BF-109 (German fighter)
“Classic logic mistake”
*shows Spitfire*
The issue was they added the armour to where the surviving planes where not where the dead planes were so the armour was practically useless
Where they didn’t get shot because that’s where the ones that didn’t come back got shot
"In World War Two the US navy *made* a classic logic mistake-"
"Thankfully, they *weren’t* fooled-"
Same happened with helmets. They were upset that there was an increase in head injuries, thinking it was due to the helmets. They didnt consider fatalities was down. Fatal injuries were now trauma injuries. In the end they probably were mad anyway. Caring for an injured soldier takes more resources than a dead one
They almost were fooled, 1 guy was like "tf are u talking about? Were looking at the survivors..."
i mean you gotta be careful when it comes to the American spitfire bombers ya know
Yeah but you'd also want the pilots to be protected aswell cuz ik for sure that ai planes are not here yet
Key phrase: The ones that were shot DOWN
Meanwhile in war thunder:
"A nine millimetre bullet penetrated your nose cap, disabling the engine, sends shrapnels killing the pilot, striking the fuel tank, and rips the plane to shreds"
Us Fighter Planes.
**Shows A Spitfire**
Almost got me until i remembered they survived
When I saw the words "ww2", "bomber", and "failure", I immediately thought of Hitler taking the Messerschmitt 262 (the world's first and fastest jet FIGHTER at the time), and using it as a bomber. Like the thing went like 500 mph and was designed to be a fighter...
The Idea to use it as a bomber wasn’t bad actually. Germany had lost its air superiority completely and sending in vultures medium or dive bombers was suicidal, so their idea was to create a plane that could drop the bomb and run away so fast that no one could intercept it.
Though, using it as a fighter could’ve been also a good idea
How about the battle of the bulge, where they used them to take photos of planes who weren’t doing well enough so they could punish the pilots? They didn’t see any combat, they just took photos!
i would add armor everywhere since its preferable to not get holes in my bombers
Only problem is the weight induced by this means less ordnance or weight in other areas like crew and defences
Also, this design process was innovated not by bombers, but by heavy fighters like the P-47 and others
IL-2 sturmovik soviet bomber literally made with this understanding. Even earned a nickname like "Flying tank"
They didn’t armor the places they DIDN’T get shot which meant that they areas that did get shot still allowed the plane to land
The technology progression during the war is insane. Like, they went from slightly more advanced than WWI aircraft to early cold war era aircraft in just under 4 years.
dude they went from spitfires being british fighters to spitfires being American bombers.
Most aircrafts at the start of the war were actually much more advanced then anything from WW1. Speed has almost doubled, range sometimes was more then 10 times higher, armament more then twice as heavy.
Stalin lost his only friend that was a pilot by being shot down by the Luftwaffe. The plane was recovered and Stalin himself went to see his friend's body and the plane. The cockpit and his friend had been shredded by 30 mm cannon fire, a lot of it. Stalin ordered that an enclosing thick protective bathtub of metal totally wrap around the cockpits of all planes produced from them on. The loss rate of the newly armored planes and their pilots was extremely low. Years afterwards we made our jets out of titanium but the Soviet planes were still made out of steel, but they did use titanium for the cockpit bathtub.
U gotta love that they use a British spitfire to represent American planes
Furthermore he says "bomber", but the spitfire wasn't even a bomber
@@theodenking320 exactly, it was the British's best "fighter".
"the US Military"
Proceeds to show a British Spitfire
Man graduated from the kfc stock pile
It's funny, cause for this study they actually used a mosquito, which is why bullet holes are missing from the middle wing sections, as that is where the engines would be.
When this guy's editor made the diagram, they mapped the bullet holes from the mosquito onto a spitfire silhouette, making it misleading af. I'm sure there weren't many spitfires returning with a bunch of holes in the cockpit.
The reason they weren't fooled was because they had already made the same mistake with their warships
Explenarion:the part wheres no holes is important:the wing parts next to the body of the plane: if they get shot here the wings will most likely get ripped apart,Tail:if it gets shot here the tail will rip off sending the plane spiralling down to the ground,Engine:if it gets shot here the engine wont work and could stop working or possibly blow up
It would, but I wouldn’t even check the bullet areas. I would say: “put an extra layer of metal.”
I personally said that you should put plating and protection on the places that weren’t getting shot because every plane is coming back, but in those specific places they were never shot
Did not cost them "the entire fleet". They were pumping out thousands of bombers each month in 1944. Also, it was mainly the Army Air Corps flying over Europe. US Navy planes only saw limited combat in few engagements in the Mediterranean.
Oh yes returning from battle even though the cockpit is shot to hell must have turned on autopilot
My brain wired to put the metal in the windows
"US Navy"
"Bomber fleet"
*Shows spitfire*
Well, at least they found the mistake they done.
It was so bad that the US navy based in midway caught the RAF bomber command using spitfires as bombers
Same problem with a space rocket where they removed certain important data from a graph