Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "The most produced Bomber in history had a bad reputation | B-24 Liberator" video.

  1. Japan had 80% of its infrastructure destroyed but happily fought on until it was nuked - so strategic bombing was worthless at bringing the country to peace. And it was rather uboats and the sinking of Japans merchant fleet that harmed Japans economy by denying it food, fuel, copper, cotton, aluminium, coal rubber and so on. Only a noob who totally lacks any knowledge about military history still believes strategic bombing have ever played any important role. And Germanys industrial production rose throughout the entire war. And it was not until allied land forces occupied the iron mines in the west and the romanian oil fields in the east that the German war production started to decline. So the air force failed. It was the army in the end that brought Germany to its knees. British historians tend not to like the truth. They cling on to even the smallest straws trying to find an area where Britain played an important role in WW2. And things do get pathetic when they try to hype up the Battle of El-Alamein and strategic bombing... or saying that not driving towards India was Hitlers worst geostrategic mistake. And there is always this silly emphasis on constantly portrait a moral victory with every failure. And the alcoholic mass murderer Winston Churchill is heralded like one of the wisest men who have ever lived. It is all hogwash. Desperate attempts for Britons to trying desperatly to make up some reason for their self-importance somehow. But fact remains that this war was won by Russian meatwave attacks and American industrial might. Britain was not unimportant in this war. Its navy played a crucial role in all theathers, and as the only country in war against Germany from the start til the end did the country play an important role over time. It was still a big and mighty empire even during the darkest hours when Hitler stood at the height of his power. Stating those things I said is uncontroversial. However silly attempts of making a hen out of a feather, and all this silly hype of bombers and the north african campaign is just ridiculous and needs to stop.
    1
  2. Nope. Germanys industrial production increased throughout the war. And Japan did not have any oil because american submarines sunk all ships carrying it from Dutch Indonesia. And all industrial imputs like coal, copper, aluminium, iron ore and such also get sunk by american warships. So strategic bombings contribution to victory was tiny and irrelevant. Just a poor use of allied resources. It contributed to warcrimes against civilians and the unnecessary death of allied airmen.
    1
  3. I think strategic bombing was a bad use of allied resources - all manpower and industrial production should have been better put to use into other types of weapons instead. Germanys industrial production increased throughout the entire war despite all bombings - and only the direct physical occupation by the iron mines and oil fields by allied armies did force German industrial production down. So the air forces efforts was a dissapointment. The allied commanders saw how worthless their "precision strikes" were and gave up the idea, and instead they tried to bomb cities and kill all factory workers when they could not hit the factories with their bombs because they were a much smaller target than a city. This new strategy was nothing else than a warcrime. Deliberatly killing women and children by burning them to death in 2000 degrees hot flames was barbaric and unnecessary. German soldiers who were unhappy about the war and skeptical of Hitler, now just got angry on the allies and lusted for revenge and strongly joined up with the nazi war effort. Young men were willing to die in battle - to protect their hometown and families from allied arsonists. Hans von Luck describes in his biography how men became more eager than ever to return to the frontline as quickly as possible to win the war and to minimize the risk of loved ones getting killed by air raids. So strategic bombing was just counter-productive as it just angered the Germans and made them more determined to fight back.
    1
  4. B24 was an important plane in that sense that it closed the gap in the atlantic ocean where the german subs previously could act indisturbed. It was an important milestone in the battle of the atlantic
    1
  5. As a kid i liked B24... but today I don't. Its box shaped for mass production. It has a big fat underbelly and huge ugly landing gears. Its like a fat elephant. And its tail rudders are unaerodynamic. B24 is basically just a plane industrialists and the airforce likes while pilots and crews would probably like it less than the B17. Its higher wingloading also makes it more vulnerable to enemy fire and harder to turn and steer. And the focus on mass production seems to have outweight the concern for crew safety. This is of course understandable if you fight a world war against two evil empires in an existential conflict. So I will say that B24 is an impressive plane despite its flaws. But its impressive features are rather find in other things - like that it was able to be mass produced on a huge scale and become the most produced bomber in history despite being big and having 4 engines - and the Germans would of course come nowhere near to compete. It was a plane capable of crossing the atlantic, fly fast and carry big bombloads - so it was a good machine for its time.
    1
  6. B24 closed the gap in the atlantic ocean
    1