Rare Luftwaffe Gun Camera: Analysis and Breakdown (Documentary)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Hey guys, some different content here today. My area of expertise, WW2 combat aviation, finally. Gotta love it. Also latest CoD video was listed as unsuitable for minors so would appreciate if you guys give this one a watch.
Support the channel on Patreon, buy my shirt. Etc. Etc.
/ animarchy
So I am going to make this pinned comment here to respond to some of the common comments I’m seeing.
First is the “war crime” depicted when shooting a landing aircraft. Now. The reason I called it such is because this aircraft is very obviously making an emergency landing in the desert. He has no landing gear deployed and is well below flight speed most likely due to engine failure. Shooting this man is close to shooting someone in a chute. Everybody did it. But it’s no excuse. If he was landing a fully functional aircraft at an airfield. That would be different because the aircraft is still combat capable and a threat. This one is not.
Secondly. I only mention the Vickers Wellington because it is was the only true level bomber the RAF made extensive use of in daylight raids before switching to night operations. The Halifax, Lancaster and Stirling while in service at this time. Were not engaged en masse by Luftwaffe day fighters. As such they aren’t relevant to the discussion of countering enemy bomber formations as the tactics for countering bomber streams is entirely different.
Third. And I can’t believe I have to make this one clear. The focus on Luftwaffe footage is because of its rarity, the more complex tactical analysis of engaging aircraft from 3 or 4 different nations with completely different tactics for each. And the fact that as their aces and pilots were generally the most accomplished and famous, it is good for the algorithm. It doesn’t represent an endorsement of the ideology of the regime they are fighting for. This is a channel for history and learning. And a genuine passion for the study of warfare both contemporary and historical. Nazi apologia, of any kind. Including accusations of it. Will be deleted. Immediately.
I _did_ say I was being pedantic lol - your narrative made it ambiguously appear that Germany were used to _only_ seeing lightly armed 'outmoded' British bombers in small formations "or operating at night", until American heavy bombers appeared...you didn't mention this was only in reference to _daylight_ raids in the video... just sayin' 👍
Regarding the "war crimes" thread, it could be enlightening to know whether the same arguments were debated when creating articles for air warfare.
Well in your opening statement you speak absolute crap, the Vickers wellington was a medium bomber by 1942. Prior to the entry of the 8th air force the RAF had been using the short sterling armed with 8 guns and the Handley page Halifax armed with 10 guns as well as the Lancaster armed with 8 guns, from Nov 41 through to Feb 42 respectively. The 8th air force flew it's first mission not until July 42, and that was with 2 engined Hudson's, the first B-17 raid wasn't flown until August 42, and then it was just 12 strong against a french port, as it was deemed that the Americans were not yet ready to deal with what would be coming their way. So much for your expertise
Yet again more crap all but one of ur opening sequence of attacks are rear low diagonal attacks, jusr because you say it is front quarter doesn't make it so
Problem number 3, the hurricane did not deploy his gear, that is a loss of hydraulic pressure causing them to become unlocked, gravity does the rest
My grandfather was a Bf-109 pilot on the eastern front. He was with JG 52 (eastern front) and was stationed in the west for a short time where he shot down two B-17s. He went back to the east after that.
This is an interesting video.
Do you have any memorabilia from him?
@@the_bigdaddy420 No, some he gave away to autograph hunters. I don't know what happened to the rest. I think my aunt may have kept some but as she was never very fond of the wartime era, she probably gave it away as well.
@@MrTryAnotherOneWhat was his name?
@@sirbader1 Karl Gratz
@@MrTryAnotherOne 138 aerial victories claimed damn
I remember reading that from a German point of view, a B-17 needed an average of 20 20mm hits to shoot it down, whereas a B-24 needed 15. The difference was due to the B-24’s massive use of aluminum in its construction.
I met a ski chalet manager who was a 16 year old Austrian “volunteer” Hitler Youth pilot in an Me-163. Once. He took a lot of incoming .50 cal approaching a box of B-17s in late April 1945. After firing off all his ammo, he said a prayer and bailed out. He broke his arm getting out of the cockpit. The wreckage of his aircraft was just bits and pieces, do to the fuel cooking off in the crash. Had the gestapo found large pieces of the wreckage with no bullet damage, he’d have been shot and his family sent to a concentration camp. That’s how desperate the Nazis were late in the war.
The field hospital he was recovering in was captured by Americans. In short, he met a German girl in a displaced persons camp and eventually they got married and both managed ski chalets in Austria and the western USA. Happy ending. He even showed me his scar. “No wound badge. Instead I survived with both arms, and my sweetheart for life!” A great couple.
Cheers!
And you know for a minor something like that had to be terrifying Germany was desperate late in the war they started recruiting kids to do a mans job
Yeah, that's why they wanted more and more 30mm firing HEI-T to meet American bombers. And what they did field, did work. Basically like tossing grenades THROUGH the airframe. Nasty.
Cool story, glad he lived a long and happy life.
It was mentioned to me that the B24 was based on an earlier flying boat design. And of course salt water is corrosive,water landings are very hard on the fuselage. So hydraulic lines,and gasoline crossover lines were high up and concentrated together. Also,there were more electric not hydraulic powered items in the B17. Hydraulic oil burns very well. The very pilots that flew the B24 knew that it was more susceptible to combat damage,but flew it anyway. Big balls,relentless courage.
I knew a man who few Pathfinder Mosquitos. Pleasant but difficult man. I do wish I had asked more about his experiences.
@@cory4576 "Kids" fight on both sides of every war.
You don't necessary need to destroy a bomber, hit 1-2 engines, and he has to leave the formation, now it's an easier prey for twin-engined fighters or flak.
23:24 is an incredible shot. Never in my life did I think I would see an image like this.
Quite a sight, having a fighter coming directly towards you.
The lesson of this clip was that you should NEVER go head on against an FW190
@@nickmitsialis ESPECIALLY with an altitude disadvantage. He lost a considerable amount of speed coming in from below like that.
Probably figured the Focker would have stalled out for much longer. Once he committed himself to turning around it was to late to adjust course.
Nightfighters tried to avoid shooting at the bombbay for fear of being killed in the xplosion. They usually aimed at wing roots to get the fueltanks and the engines.
Correct. And also a pilot aiming at wing roots could fatally damage the aircraft's main spar thereby making the wings fold up.
@jamesirvine9493the research in this video is impeccable, please refrain from acting a fool
@James Irvine bro clearly can't read but criticize this mf for not doing extensive research
@jamesirvine9493 Nazi apologist, get out.
That was the tactics of the Me 110 nightfighter with the upward firing 'jazz music'rocket installation.Fly beneath the bomber and the upward firing rockets destroyed it.
Please do more if possible. Your commentary makes it even better. Also, Rest in Peace to all the gentlemen we saw dying in the footage. Respect the fallen!
Amen to that !
The me 163 footage is incredible. I live like 2km away from the Airfield where the Jagdgeschwader 400 with the Me-163's was stationed. They where the "Objektschützer" (literally translated Object protectors) of the Leuna refinery.
“Never fly straight and level for longer than 5 seconds”
- Biggles (of the Camel Squadron).
If only Wilks and his damn SE5 jocks would stay out of their way long enough for 266 to get real work done.
+ Quote: Adolph Gysbert Malan.
He probably couldn't hold an altitude so he used this as an excuse
@@behindthen0thing525 Sopwith Camels have a service ceiling of 19,000 feet. Patrols were generally at a much lower altitude because their primary purpose was observation.
@@fredbloggs5902 dogfighting
The Merlin didn’t cut on negative G from low fuel flow - it cut because of HIGH fuel flow (the engine flooded out). The black smoke is a marker for over rich mixture.
Miss Schilling’s Orifice simply limited the maximum flow to the engine to full military power - so the engine couldn’t flood out.
smart technic woman
Does it really? I thought The fuel injection was gravity assisted, And The liquid Fuel simply pulled up from The fuel line that is situated straight beneath The fuel tank And cut The engine? Or do you mean The fuel in The fuel line is pushed up The line And spits too much Fuel into cylinders And Then is followed by The lack of Fuel? 🤔
You are 100% correct. They were carburetor engines and the fuel “slosh” inside the carb comes out the vents of the carb making the fuel mix rich causing the black smoke!
@@anttitheinternetguy3213Fuel injection had a constant pressure feed to the injection pump, so no problems with engine cut out. Carb engines also had a pressure pump with a float which caused an over rich mixture. The speed kept the prop moving so after a high g manoeuvre it fired up again.
As an old USAF aviator, you did a great job with this. You have a sound understanding of basic air combat maneuvering or ACM/ BFM. I enjoyed your very accurate nuances in describing the various fights and the aircraft involved.
If you can turn tight into his aircraft, you ruin the gun solution of your opponent as he no longer can pull lead on a high deflection shot. Energy management is also very important especially in a climbing or diving fight.
It is a whole different ball game today, not even in the same universe.
Man for man those Luftwaffe Aces were good and honorable men. The Americans and some of the Common Wealth pilots shot far more Luftwaffe pilots in their chutes than the other way around, it was not even close on that score. And as an American fighting man and WWII history buff, we know the victors always write history to paint themselves as the picture of virtue and fair play.
It's worth noting that a lot of German accusations against the USAAF and RAF of pilot-chute-shooting stems from a somewhat interesting quirk of how Allied fighters' camera systems were set up. Often, the only way to get the gun camera to record anything was to fire. Allied pilots wanting to get images of enemy pilots in their chutes, in order to get credit for their kills, would fire off short bursts with their planes approaching the chute. To the bailed-out Luftwaffe pilot, this looks like an attempt to kill them in the chute, but the reality was mostly harmless.
you effing liar...you ere NO "aviator"....stolen valor right there!
⚖
⚖
@@Seadog..11 Pretty funny. I was a prior enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. I still claim the Marine Corp as my tribe. Flying for the USAF was a dream job for several years, but all good things come to an end.
This was hard to watch I'm 53 I grew up listening to the stories of my great unkle Raymond Bailey a B17 waist gunner who was shot down over Germany and bailed out. Only three survived of the 10 in his crew
Man I'm 35 hears old and we come from the last generations who respect the men who fought in ww2 and respect America
@@cory4576 hey I’m in the newest generation and I have an amazing amount of respect for them 🫡 It’s sad how some people just forgot about the lives lost
@@cory4576 sure. Im 17 from sweden and I do respect all good men who fought in ww2. Especially tankers/airmen
Over 50 percent of american bombers were shot down. It was a risky job.
So, you're having your uncles nightmares? Maybe you should take his anxiety medication too.
Did anyone catch the date on Oblt. Haala and Lt. Sterr's gun camera footage? (26:40) 20. 7. 44... July 20, 1944, the same day as the assassination attempt on Hitler.
12:48 Eric Hartman. I love SciFi because of just how often it can be weirdly relevant. Battlestar Galactica S2E15 Scar. "This isn't dueling pistols at dawn, this is war! You never wanna fight fair. You wanna sneak up, behind your enemy and club him over the head!" Kara "Starbuck" Thrace
So say we all.
*Erich Hartmann
That was very well put together & the footage surprisingly good after all these years, the commentary was also helpful for me. A sad fact that in each encounter, someone probably died, & with the larger B-17's, B-24's & Lancaster's etc , it was extremely difficult to exit a hit aircraft if it wasn't flying pretty steady, so one basket took many eggs with it, much respect to all those who served, on both sides.
I've been inside a Lancaster recently... I had enough trouble getting in and out of it while _parked._ I can only imagine if it was spinning out of control.
When will humankind learn how useless warfare is-both sides lose life and material-suppose never!
@@gertvanniekerk46 It's useless, yes, but if you're being attacked, there's no choice but to fight. Once corrupt nations can find no more reasons to not declare war on each other, there's no need to fight for our country.
@@TheEDFLegacy Fully agree with you my explanation for reason of why warfare, is, Survival, Need or Greed!
Fuck that. Zero respect to the Nazis.
Way to go offering your expertise and enthusiasm! I’ve watched a few videos of gun camera footage, but never had the context necessary to get much out of them. You’re filling that gap = thanks so much. Take care.
At 9:56 "...fire up into the bomb bay..."
Nope! They fired at the wing & engine assembly to destroy the wing spar and cause the wing to shear off. Firing at the bomb bay lead to attacker & attacked being destroyed.
I didn't know such intense dogfight footage exists! Also, this video is top quality, I appreciate the work you put into it - and above all, your grand expertise!
I'd love to see more of this but about A6M2-5 since they could pull intresting manuevers with their incredible turn rate/circle, but i feel like there is a general lack of japanese aereal footage.
Plenty of footage of them getting shot down. No footage inside of a zero as the Japanese did not have gun cameras
@@AnimarchyHistory huh. Didn't know that.
@@AnimarchyHistory So how did they confirm kills? Did they just believe their pilots or they had a witness system or something like that?
@@vinisaid4000 Possibly a buddy confirmed, if not then list as unconfirmed. This is at least the way the Finns did it. Important to note that the VAST majority of even allied planes never carried gun cameras so I'm not really sure what you are talking about with confirming kills and such. That wasn't the main purpose of gun cameras in general.
You are indeed correct that the IJAAF never had cameras on the aircraft and air victories were taken at face value.
Fair video commentary, just a few pointers, Roman numerals in front of a Jagdgeschwader are not staffel indication but those of a Gruppe! So IV/ JG54 is fourth Gruppe of JG54. 24:51 The German pilots staffel would probably be one of 13, 14th or 15th staffel of JG54(at this stage of the war Gruppe had 4 staffel each where as up to 1942-43 they usually had 3 staffel).I have managed to find photos of the Fw190A-8s of IV/JG54. Also most footage of Yak fighters being shot would probably be Yak-1, Yak 7 or Yak-9 as proven on the footage tag, when the Yak-3 came in the war it was different picture for the Germans they just couldn’t compete against it and apparently actual orders were issued to forbid pilots to engage with Russian fighters without a belly radiator (yak-3) under certain heights. Finally the two MG131 which were on the nose of the Bf109G-5 onwards the Fw-190A / D were 13mm caliber not 20mm which you mentioned in error. Also a ‘staffel’ isn’t a squadron it’s a flight element of 12 to 16 aircraft
i read an article on hartmann. his method was to close to a couple of meters and strafe above, beginning with the engine and ending in the cockpit, or as you said, underneath. hard to miss at 2 meters. he lost several fighters due to damage from his targets disintegrating and the pieces striking his fighter. well done vid!
It was not 2 meters. He would open fire at very close range but saying 2 meters is just silly.
@@furbs9999 correct you are. he would commence his runs at 20 meters, and fire at "point blank range", whatever that is. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann causing debris damage from victims or midair collisions to force him to land. i'd say that's even closer.
Hartman crashed 8 times due to hitting parts from his victim and battle damage. He is quoted saying "fill the wind screen with the target then shoot".
This footage, without your expertise, would not be as valuable as it is. Thanks a lot!!!
what a great and detailed analysis! thank you very much for uploading! best regards from Germany!
respect for all pilots of these years!
I have been watching ww2 gun camera footage for 30 years and this is the best commentary I have come across. Excellent!
You're absolutely right about the faster closer rate from head-on of course, and the lesser exposure. However, the closure speed for a Messerschmitt Bf109 or Focke Wulf Fw190 from the rear would've been far greater than 10mph. B17s and B24s with full bomb loads would be cruising at around 180 to 200 mph, whereas the single engine Luftwaffe fighters would be approaching from the rear at full throttle and therefore at the best part of 400mph, so therefore they're still closing at about 200mph. Pardon my being pedantic, but just for accuracies sake. Yes, the US heavy bombers early in the campaign didn't have much in the way of frontal fire power as they weren't anticipating frontal attack, so that was an additional advantage of attacking from the front quarter. Amazing to think that the frontal closure rate would've been at about 500mph, - 200mph approx from the US bombers with the fighters approaching at probably around 300mph rather than at full throttle. 500mph would've been plenty sufficient for purpose, but they also needed firing accuracy and time to pull up and avoid a head-on collision. It must've been seriously scary from the cockpit of a Flying Fortress or a Liberator. Thanks for the fascinating video!
Hartmann's stalking from 6 o'clock low followed by a quick burst at very short range mirrors von Richthofen's technique.
9:46 The upward pointing guns in the German night fighters were called "Schräge Musik" and the pilots most emphatically did not aim at the bomb bays of the aircraft they were attacking at close range - they didn't want to get blown up when the bomb loads went off.
Instead, they aimed at the wings, where the fuel tanks were. A few rounds from a pair of 30 mm cannon were usually all it took.
Robert Forsyth is an Author of WW2 aviation of great repute; He had the 'head on' attack sequence from 4:58 in one of his books, and, it was shot from a Me110 twin engine fighter ( or "Zerstorer" as it was referred to); not only do we have a good shot of the 'gun attack' but those black smoke puffs came from the detonation of the '110's' WG-21 underwing rockets, which were unusually, from a head on position.
Mentioned before, pardon any redundancy. My father piloted B-24s in the 15th. He said the most destructive fighter attack he ever witnesed was around ten 190s, abreast, hitting a 24 head-on. The bomber fell to pieces. Believe he said this was over Vienna or Wiener Neustadt. Haven't read reports of similar elsewhere but dad, like most combat vets, was reluctant to speak of any of this and never a man given to exaggerate.
@@user-xv9sk2xq7g I know that IV/JG3, the 'OG' Sturmgruppe was sometimes shifted to the Southern parts of 'The Reich'. A 'line abreast attack' sounds just like a 'Sturm' attack, except that it took place from the 12 o'clock rather than the 6 o'clock position.
Great analysis and commentary. I think the most amazing part is that this footage is even available at all in any kind of ready to view medium. I look forward to further, similar videos. Cheers.
I wish more people can do analysis and breakdowns of rare WWII footages!😊
Your commentary is what gives these clips all the value. You’re doing a fantastic job. Cheers to you.
Yes, indeed. I reckon the footage could be cleaned up a great deal with some current digital enhancement. The narration was great. I’d love to hear a Yank describe US footage and an Aussie call the play (deadly serious play) on RAAF V JAF.
The Hurricane's gear went down as the hydraulics were shot out, that fire was hydraulic fluid set alight from an incendiary 20 mm round.
i sense a new series coming
Combat aviation is my favourite. It’s probably shone through in my videos.
@@AnimarchyHistory This may be more trouble than its worth, but what about trying to simulate the fights you're seeing on the gun cam footage in a game like Warthunder, like the old dogfights tv show? You could show the view of the camera and what it would look like from an outside perspective.
@@johnandrews8293did you try to do it?! Sounds Like a good Idea to me 👍🏼🍀🏴☠️
Would be awesome to see a categorization of aces, by their tactics, like, visualizing how they had different modus operandi and how good they were at it
It's pretty interesting to think that we have footage of a war that lasted 6 years & you can only find some 20 minutes combined of gun cameras.
I heard that there's still a shitload of footage from gun cameras from all sides of the war that haven't been shared with the public community... imagine all the crazy stuff we could see and learn.
Yes please!!
Im so glad someone did this. The footage out there is wild but its used and treated as stock footage.
Fascinating video and I love your commentary. Very insightful!
There was plenty of German gun camera footage, the luftwaffe was very religious about preserving it.
Unfortunately it was all stored in a central location, the basement of the air Ministry building in Dresden
I believe Germans also referred to the IL-2 as "the concrete plane". It earned it, but still died in horrendous numbers.
He: And that is a warcrime
Also he: *proceeds to send full squads of fighters to strafe airbases and landing british planes in the Battle of Britain serie*
hey it ain't a warcrime because he's wining, same can't be said about our irl German friends.
I’m playing as the Luftwaffe. Emulating US tactics. If I’m not committing warcrimes I am failing.
My dad used to tell me, "THERE ARE RULES IN WAR UNTIL THE FIRST SHOT IS FIRED".
As the Romans would say, inter arma enim silent leges.
26:37 Fourth group, NOT Staffel. Groups had Latin numerals, Staffeln had Arabic numerals. Some wings (Geschwader) had four groups instead of three, and wing organisation had broken down by 1943 anyway, with sometimes one group being in action thousands of km away from the others.
Just wanted to add the same to a otherwise very well done explanation of Luftwaffe gun camera footage (just checked the comments to see if someone else also noticed the slight Gruppe/Staffel error ).
But apart from this a very entertaining and informative work.
A little weak on the speeds involved. Approaching from the rear at a relative speed of 10 mph? No. A B-17 in formation would be cruising at about 200 mph, and the ‘109 or ‘190 would be at full combat speed, at least 100 mph faster. That still gives gunners an easier shot than a head-on attack, but not “10 mph" easy.
Wrong. The Luftwaffe pilots have a thing in their hand called a throttle. They pull back on it, slow down and match the speed of the bomber. Then they push the rudder bar left and right (this is is called yaw) and rake the plane tearing it apart. There are dozens of clips of this a few clicks away. In fact, watch this: ruclips.net/video/0yMT0H8qe9k/видео.html at 7:55. The closure rate is zero. The 110 is stationary parked behind the B-17 and empties his entire load into it. It will make you sick. The crew must be dead, no return fire. The ball turret is hanging down immobile. Sad.
Some thoughts: The "head on" approach goes back to WW1, when the saying was "meat or metal" when dogfighting. That's because the planes of that era were mostly fabric, so bullets would simply pass through. If you wanted to get a plane down without using up all your ammo, you had to go for the engine or the pilot. The problem with the ME-163 is that it killed more of its pilots than the allied forces did. If the rocket motor malfunctioned (not uncommon), the fuel will literally dissolve the pilot.
In WW1 that tactic was a more viable one given the speed and proximity of the engagement. But when dealing with WW2, unless engaging large bomber formations. Head on was a last resort. Primarily because if you approach head on to fighters, light bombers or attack aircraft it is a neutral engagement and thus they can also shoot you. It’s far better to manoeuvre for a shot and avoid the head on engagement unless you are caught in a really bad spot and need to reset the fight with a merge. Also yeah. The 163 was nasty for that. The fuels were really unstable as the Germans couldn’t get their hands on complex materials or alloys to make and store safer compounds. Also why the Jets had to be rebuilt every 3 flights because they didn’t have the rare metals to forge alloys that could take the heat of the axial flow Jumos.
@@AnimarchyHistory I probably should have said the tactic had its roots in that. There's also a tactic that you mentioned (the below and behind) that also had it's roots in WW1 tactics, since there were also fighters (like the SE-5) that had a machine gun for the observer in the back. Basically, you want to avoid the weapons and at the same time take the opponent out quickly.
The Fuel was Stupidly Volitile it wasn't the Engine that malfunctioned it was a lot more of the time a incorrect fuel mixture causing the entire Plane to become a massive Volitile toxic Bomb
@@lt_bacon205 All hypergolic fuels have flesh dissolving effects. There was a study that suggested that if the Gemini crew had ejected from the capsule their suits wouldn’t have protected them from the fuel spilled from the booster.
The Apollo LM had the same problem (and shared the cabin with the rocket engine (yes the engine was INSIDE the cabin).
@@allangibson2408 Iirc how apollo was Built the Engine was mostly the Cabin its self and yeah I know that most rocket Fuels Like to disolve fleshies how ever The particular fuel used by the Me163 was more prone to Volitile Exolosions
a List of things that could make it go off was
Incorrect fuel mix
The trolly bouncing back up and Vibe checking the aircraft
landing and exploding
the list was a Lot Longer than Rockets after The Me163 for sure
That first b24 you paused on looked as if it had a loss of hydraulic pressure. Both barrels straight down was how the gunner accessed the belly turret. I could be wrong but my grandfather's (1 a b25 pilot and the other was a multi gunner on a b17)
both emphasized the huge problems with hydraulic pressure loss, and both barrels down was how the gunner accessed the bottom turret.
MAGNIFICENT presentation and many thx !
It occurs to me that frontal attacks at bombers have a secondary effect. At a head on closing speed total of 500 mph it adds considerably to effective muzzle energy. At such speeds, ballistic impact energy increases at about 30 percent, I reckon... This would clearly increase damage done to targets. However, I never read about this being a consideration for adopting head-on approaches by the Luftwaffe. Of course the same impact effect is true for defensive fire, causing more damage to attacking fighters.
The Germans actually started this approach from the front, that is why the Americans made the B17 G model, with a chin Turret. G is probably for Germany.
@@traxel14 do you mean that the Luftwaffe saw increased impact energy as an additional reason to attack frontally ?
@@traxel14 the RAF used frontal attacks in the Battle of Britain because they found that the Luftwaffe bombers had only one machine gun able to be brought to bear by the bomb aimer. Eight guns versus one is no contest.
Hurricane clip from Battle of Britain movie being flown by Walt Diemert from Carman Manitoba, Canada. He restored it himself.
He just passed away, January 2024.
RIP.
We hear about the durability of the Thunderbolt and the IL2, and this collection has incredibly graphic illustrations of the P-47 and IL2, not to mention other Soviet machines. 20mm that were blowing bombers apart had seeming minimal impact on the T-bolts and Reds.
Il2 durability is heavy mythologised by russians that why you hear about it so often
Another book lesser known than “The First and The Last” penned by Adolph Galland, is “The Luftwaffe Fighter Force” where he shows fighter/bomber tactics and organizations. As we watch the videos and play the games, it is best to remember that real warriors climbed into these machines of death and many died so that we could learn from their exploits and mistakes. We sometimes live vicariously thru these men, imagining ourselves flying, experiencing thrills and the more heroic aspects of combat.We rarely think that we would die doing this. However, most died that experienced combat to help us remember what war means.Death in these circumstances was not fun nor heroic. Enjoy.
There is guncam footage that I always found most disturbing. An B-24 that is getting engaged head on and at rather close range...sudden impacts of cannon mine-rounds in the cockpit. Horrible way to die...but I guess no death is pleasant, at least not in war.
I know this one. The cockpit basically exploded
My grandma's cousin was apart of the RAF and was in a bristol beaufighter and his last mission was said to be in Scotland however he was said to be MIA.
If you really want to do gun cameras check out the Argentin A-4 Skyhawks footage on british ships. Crazy stuff
Look up the f16 and bronco dog fight, Venezuela
@@BAZZAROU812
Not a fair fight !
@@BAZZAROU812 i saw that recently that was some wild shit!
So insane to see footage of a FW-190 fighting that P-51. The Mustang flies so good up there the guy could barely compete and he still managed to recover control and get shots in head on. Must have been some feeling being sent to intercept high altitude fighters way up there.
18:44 to be honest, it happened from both sides a LOT, even on people who parachuted
nope, quite wrong
@@plinnytheother6107 you're right, the allies did it way more than the Germans.
@@plinnytheother6107 Plenty of video evidence to prove otherwise
Not really. Over the Pacific it happened frequently by mostly Japanese fighters.
Also over the Eastern front because both sides hated each other bitterly. However over the European and African theaters this was heavily discouraged.
For the B17 armament of .50 BMG a quick calculation gives 500 mph = 730 fps added MV = 7000 fpe additional muzzle energy with 650 grain ball, discounting burst distances (of, say, between 500 down to 200 yards?). Starting from stationary ME of 13000 fpe, this is an increase by 53 percent! I have no German 20 mm ammo figures available.
I'm amazed that any of these aircraft (both Allied and Axis) were able to even get off the ground with all the added weight of the balls on these men.
Excellent video mate 👍
Animarchy: “and what we see here is a war crime”
Me in IL2, shooting down another aircraft trying to make an emergency landing: “wait what?”
9:50 Night fighters usually did not aim at the (possibly already emptied) bomb bay but at the wing root because two or three hits would make a Lancaster wing break off.
I said this on one of these gun camera videos and I'll say it here.
I find footage like this to be equal parts interesting, terrifying and sad.
Yep nowhere to run. Nowhere to hide 😔
I've been watching a few videos like this, one thing strikes me is the way the young pilots of the day spoke with a certain constraint in their reports, compared to young men today, including the author of this video .. "he f*cking smashed it".
Really awesome. I had JUST started searching YT for gun camera footage about 2-3 weeks ago. Looking forward to more breakdowns like these. I know there's some good F-86 footage out there too.
You could have mentioned the Lancaster, the British bomber which superseded the Wellington. It had a turret in the nose for defence.
Really great video man. Would love to see more of this from each nation and maybe some other wars if possible. Great work!
No war crime to shoot at a crash landed aircraft. The pilot is a combatant, he is not surrendering, he could still live to fight another day. He is a target.
No different to strafing a convoy of trucks or shooting down an Me.262 on take off or landing as was the habit. Ungentlemanly but not illegal by Allied or Axis orders and laws.
Thinking that in WW2 sides fought while abiding laws is too immature. 27 mln of russians were slaughtered and vast majority of those were civilians, non-combatants. It is known fact that luftwaffe, krigsmarine was aiming at trains, ships and trucks with red cross, taking them as a target. Shooting pilots on parachutes and so on. Bombing of Dresden in 1944 could also considered as an unnecessary crime. War is a crime and everything happening there is a crime. Who started it, those are the biggest criminals. Make your research on who actually gaslighted WW2, pushing germans against russians and vise versa.
What is wrong with strafing an enemy aircraft as it attempts to force land?
That is not a war crime at all.
If it occurs in enemy territory that enemy airman might be flying again within hours.
War is not a picnic.
I have to say I second this sentiment. Also there is plenty of gun camera footage readily available showing USAAF aircraft gunning down German farmers in their horse drawn traps & carriages late in the war, as well as footage of US fighters shooting at crash landing and crash landed Nazi aircraft. Let us not forget the Kiwi (New Zealander) who made regular efforts to hunt and shoot down Luftwaffe light training aircraft (these aircraft being completely unarmed and out classed) to bolster his ace status. The footage of these events is here on RUclips, wartime's warcrimes did not discriminate between nationalities.
@@Ecthaelyon Yes,it was Arado 96.
It was not a war crime. Only shooting pilots(not paratroopers) would be a war crime as of 1949. So not during WW II. It is quite well know that at the end of WW II it was done by american pilots. Because germany had more planes than (experienced) pilots. The question about whether or not one should shoot ejecting pilots was a lively debate at the time. It was generally seen being against the code of honour between pilots. There are reports about Churchill and the Hugh Downing(RAD Air Chief Marshal) having a discussion about shooting parachuting luftwaffe pilots. This conversation also shows that even though frowned upon shooting parachuting pilots was legal.
Both the Halifax and Lancaster when in service before the 8th started flying in the ETO. These both had power operated turrets and machine guns in them granted not .50 but still enough to shoot a fighter down. The Luftwaffe pilots soon developed tactics for shooting night bombers down, and had a field day shooting down US bombers that were unescorted by fighters. By attacking them head on, as there were no defensive guns pointing straight forward, just as the RAF predicted.
Calling that one clip a "war crime" is an overstatement. Yes, it's the ugly, ugly business of war, but the Geneva Convention covered pilots taking to parachute, not aircraft in the act of ditching or retreating.
Yes, and a well known US "Top" Ace even wrote in his book, that they were to shoot any german pilots in the parachute, which he and his comrades did.
Read many accounts where US pilots would wait till the Me262 and Me163B pilots would attempt to land and be taken out during this act .
Exactly. Shooting an aircraft on the ground or making an emergency landing is not a war crime, it is called engaging a target of opportunity.
Actually even shooting pilots hanging in parachutes could be debated (despite it being covered by the Geneva Convention), as an enemy pilot remains an armed combatant, i.e. a viable target until he or she has surrendered.
The idea of a war being "clean" or "chivalrous" is hilarious. Killing is an ugly business and one would best avoid it altogether.
The Geneva Convention of 1949 is when parachutists were protected by force of law. Prior to that the act of shooting a pilot in a chute was not considered a crime, merely distasteful.
@@phantomTomcat1985 if I were infantry on the ground and paratroopers were deployed overhead, I'd still order to open fire. Rather even the odds a bit and maybe face court-martial later than risk the lives of my soldiers.
I don’t think any German fighter would be so slow as to only have a 10mph advantage over a B-17.
Thus might sound crazy but is there any gun cameras from Japanese planes?
No, Japanese planes didn’t have cameras.
Hey Animarchy, this is a good analysis of gun camera footage during WWII. You are right about anyone providing an exploration into such footage ~and~ with in-depth commentary. I think you may be the first. Great job with this and please keep the production going as it is beneficial to the general population and to those who wish to discover more within the genre.
As a person whom tends to play Devils Advocate. It is possable that the strafing run was an attempt to confirm a kill.
I will admit it is a weak defense of the action and that the burst should have been off of the target, but if you don't know your gun cam field of view well and need to confirm the kill behind enemy lines.
Pics or it didn't happen philosophy has been around as long as portable cameras.
No idea why they did it, but you will see it quite commonly in gun cam footage. There is a ton of footage of the allies doing it. Not saying they did it more often, just that there is more allied footage available and it's not uncommon in there. It's worth remembering that if you see naval camera footage, people kept shooting at aircraft that had their wings shot off and were going down in flames. People get fixated I guess. It could have just as easily been an act of genuine cruelty too, or even vengeance. Whilst callous, it's easier to replace an airframe than a pilot, that could be why. We wont ever know.
If you shoot down an enemy plane behind enemy lines, as long as the pilot bails out or manages a survivable landing, they can go and get in another aircraft and continue the fight. This means that they absolutely were legitimate targets.
This can be seen in the Battle of Britain. There are cases of the Luftwaffe shooting British pilots who had bailed out but RAF fighters were supposed not to shoot German aircrew who had bailed out because they were effectively already POWs.
In the North African Desert, an aircraft that bellylanded due to damage could be recovered and repaired; one of the I/JG27 ace pilots, Otto Schulz made a habit of strafing aircraft that had bellied in (though He would wait for the pilot to get out before doing so), but in the end, he got caught doing this by another Desert Airforce pilot and got shot down and killed.
I don't get this "pilot fetish". If it was an infantryman, sailor or even just a cook it would be perfectly acceptable for a fighter to strafe them all fair like. But pilots no, they need to be allowed to continue fighting. Because - umm, yea no clue why.
FW 190A-8 2x13mm, 2x20mm, 2x30mm, the 30mm were MK-108s, not the MK101 or 103, so it fires fast but the total velocity of the round is low when compared to the majority of other aero guns/canons.
Kudos to you sir, this is rare footage.
And that P-51 engagement is the craziest I've ever seen, for so many different reasons.
For one, the German has his hands full recovering from the spin, secondly the P-51 is coming back to finish it, I was sitting here thinking that must have been a typical amai (naive) German pilot like so many of them were, death sentence.
The German meanwhile defies my thinking by going "nothing I didn't learn at gasshuku, keikaku dori" (seeing as this channel apparently has anime ties, I'm just getting with the program 🤣) and not only manages to recover out of the spin, he does so with the P-51 in his frontal plane.
And as if that wasn't enough, he does so with enough speed to re-engage the P-51 in the horizontal.
When the P-51 sees where it's all headed (literally), he follows the book and jerks the stick back to get out of his current predicament with a high speed, high deflection zoom climb.
It induces not just 1 direction of opposite travel for the German to compensate for, but two.
By ALL rights that P-51 should have been off the hook.
But nope, deutsu pilotu goes skiari by lifting the P-51's skirts when it zoom's like that, and doesn't miss a beat utterly VIOLATING it's Achilles heel, the belly, where all the coolers are, hai, sore-wa owari-desu!
Also, I couldn't spot the razorback on the P-51, meaning that was the bubble canopy variant of the P51, the D-model, late war.
And yet we're sitting here watching the guncam footage, that means the P-51's friends DIDN'T shoot down the German.
So, not only was that an experienced German, his whole squadron must have been abunai for the P-51's they faced.
???
@@jmp.t28b99 How can I assist you?
the P-40 could actually dogfight a Me109 at low altitude. many pilots simply did not know as much then about dogfighting as we do now. Many pilots never lived long enough to learn how to fight their plane properly. Many were aggressive or preferred the turn fight, even when their plane wasn't suited for that type of fighting.
I know this is being pedantic but, seeing as this claims to be a documentary:
"The only real hardcore bomber Britain had was the Vickers Wellington...and they were only operating in small formations of 10-15 aircraft"...
Er, Handley Page Halifax? And hadn't the Lancaster also already began operational service by the time the first combat units of the USAAF 8th arrived in June 1942?
May15th 1940 - first night time RAF raid on Germany - 99 aircraft
Aug 26th 1940 - first RAF raid on Berln - 81 aircraft
April 8th 1941- RAF raid on Keil Naval base - 299 aircraft
March 28th 1942- RAF raid on Lubeck 224 aircraft
May 30th 1942 - RAF attack Cologne with 1,046 aircraft, first of the "1,000 bomber" raids
First USAAF 8th airforce combat units arrive in England 9th June 1942 .
As always, Americans dreaming how they won the war by themselves.
And please add Short Sterling and Manchester bombers to the list.
Also, regarding armament - Wellington - forward and tail turret (tail - 4 machineguns) and a retractable ventral turret. Handley Page Halifax - forward and tail turret and dorsal turret. Lancaster - forward and tail turret and dorsal turret .
About Lancaster, the payload was 12000 pounds, going to 22000 pounds to accomodate Tallboy bomb.
B29 - operational in May 41 - 20000 pounds payload - biggest US bomber.
@@minciumihnea5344you do know the uploader is Australian right?
Oh and btw, you’re welcome for the lend-lease we dumped into Britain to keep them alive
It is seldom talked about, but target fixation was a problem many fighter pilots had. It killed a number of them. Hitting your target with your aircraft is effective but bad for your health. In 1943 my uncle was able to claim a BF-109 due to the fighter hitting the guns of his top turret on his B-17. It was his last mission because he was hit by two bullets and ended up trapped in the turret. He spent the rest of the war in the hospital.
If possible, I'd like to see more of this! As an aviation enthusiast myself (Tigercat ftw), the Art of the Dogfight is fascinating to watch!
At 18:34, it's unlikely that the pilot deployed the undercarriage, it's more likely that the hydraulics were shot away, causing a loss of hydraulic pressure and the undercarriage dropped due to gravity. The fire on the undercarriage that you can see is likely to be burning oil as the Hurricane carried the engine oil reservoir in the leading edge of the port wing, inboard of the undercarriage mount.
I learned an incredible amount not learned from just watching gun camera footage without commentary such as you have provided. Knowing that this wasn't academic and pilots were being killed when especially those of my nation my stomach made itself aware to me.
You seem to have forgotten the main British Lancaster heavy bomber with their 1000bomber raids and although not as much protection as the B17 it had a much greater payload and operated at night to help reduce losses which the US forces didn’t do.
17:12 The 109 did not "outclass" the P-40 in every category. The P-40 in many cases held its own and it did have certain advantages over the 109. The P-40 is often misunderstood and misreported in terms of its actual usage instead of hypothetical battles it was kept out of due to its limitations, mostly in high altitude work.
I’m sorry. But as an air to air fighter the BF-109’s performance in all respects is superior to the P-40 with the exception of dive speed and ammo capacity. In sustained turn rate, climb rate and performance the 109 E and especially the 109 F is superior at all altitudes except sea level. Even factoring in the sheer ability of Hans Joachim Marseille, JG27 alone over North Africa inflicted horrific losses on the P-40 for the cost of very few of their own aircraft. There were days where they would confirm 30 to 40 aircraft destroyed, most of them P-40s with no loss to themselves. Not only that the biggest factor is that with its performance advantage the 109 can simply disengage 90% of the time. Unless you are in need of a fighter bomber, which the P-40 excels at. I’m taking the 109 every single time.
@@AnimarchyHistory You contradict yourself in your own words. On the one hand you say _"the BF-109’s performance in _*_all_*_ respects is superior to the P-40."_ And in the very same sentence you concede _"...with the exception of dive speed and ammo capacity."_ The P-40 was more maneuverable than the Me109. This is a surprising fact for many people but it is a fact. It could turn tighter and roll faster, and was a forgiving aircraft to fly. It also had a much further reach and could stay in the fight a lot longer due to its far superior range. It was more ruggedly built, able to pull higher Gs and could absorb more battle damage. It could also out-dive the Me109 and, unlike the German aircraft, it handled well at high speed. That doesn't mean it was a better aircraft overall, and I'm not claiming that it was. But it held its own, and most engagements were as shown in this video - sneaking up on the blindside of the adversary and blowing his brains out before he knows what hit him. As far as armament, for fighter-to-fighter combat (i.e. not heavy bomber interdiction), six 50s were at least as effective as the 109s armament (and IMO, better). The cannon vs MG debate goes on forever, but at a minimum there is armament parity between the two for one-on-one fighter combat.
The reason Marseille shot down so many P-40s is because he was Marseille - not because he was in a 109 ( _“The quality of the box matters little. Success depends upon the man who sits in it.”_ -- Manfred von Richthofen). Also, you can cherry pick the E variant or the F variant of the 109 but there were important upgrades to the P-40 along the way too which more or less kept parity. Also, you can cherry pick the era of when German pilots were better trained and had real battle experience along with a combat debugged aircraft early in the conflict (109 flying in combat since '38) when first confronting green allied forces. Or you can look at the later war results when allied pilots got their game-on and introduced some lessons learned upgrades and tactics with their own aircraft.
Overall the P-40 performed admirably for its time and in its role, especially in the hands of a skilled pilot who knew how to fly it and how not to fly it. The 109 did not "outclass" the P-40 in *every* category. That is patently false.
@@AnimarchyHistory Well, yes and no. Hans Joachim Marseille is credited with shooting five British planes down in one day, except that the records exist which unequivocally demonstrate that on the day in question five planes were not lost!
@@drott150 Neville Duke and and Clive Caldwell would disagree. The Germans understood and respected the P-40, especially it's firepower but a 109 could outclimb and outdive a P-40 any day of the week, because it had a higher tactical Mach number BUT it was harder to pull out of a dive than a P-40 and it could not roll at all in a dive compared to a P-40, so a P-40 could dive away from a 109 and wqhen the 109 followed, the P-40 could outroll it and get away so the 109 or Macchi 202 would be forced to quit the dive and zoom climb back up to it's perch. You should read DH Clarke's book called "what they were like to fly". Its a real eye opener on actual wartime performance of aircraft, from a guy who flew them in combat.
I remember having a conversation with a Lancaster pilot. He said they had asked for a ball turret, but they wouldn't give them one.
The columns of black smoke seen in the first footage are 21cm WGr air to air rocket mortar grenades exploding, which they launched at the formation.
Outstanding vid. Just a point of clarification; using the rollercoaster analogy, negative G would be felt as the carriage goes over the crest of a rising track element. Not so much the sensation felt as it’s going downhill on the track. It’s a feeling of lightness (less than 1 G), or more correctly, being forced out of ones seat against a seatbelt or safety barrier.
My Dad's cousin was a WWII P-38 Pilot. He was shot down and exchanged in a prisoner of war exchange. Basically, an original Colonel Hogan. After the war, he became a Test Pilot for Lockheed Aircraft. Very interesting fellow and would eventually own lots of real estate in California making him fairly wealthy.
Americans generally had Fairchild Bell and Howell 24 volt 16 MM Kodak Aerocolor. It ran a civilian Kodak 50 foot film magazine. After missions, some servicemen got to finish the roll with a Filmo, before it was developed. Film Magazines were sometimes reloaded in black duffel bags on the ground. Many many undeveloped magazines exist to this day, but with the color faded.
narrator - "no one has ever done a historical breakdown of gun camera footage of any kind at all"
me- laughs hysterically while thinking of the HOURS of gun cam footage i have seen on many many videos about RAF and USAAF gun camera footage lol
to be fair though, i think this is the first video i have watched which is dedicated to Luftwaffe gun camera footage.
Dropping the landing gear was taken as a universal sign of "I'm out". A bit like putting your arms up and saying "no more please". Both my grans Brothers flew during the war. Her youngest brother survived as a pow but was burned fairly bad. Spent a lot of time in German hospitals. Her eldest brother was a navigator in bombers and his plane went down over Europe, no survivors. Interesting video, thanks for sharing 👍
German Ace Johannes Steinhoff, in his autobiographical book, "The Straits of Messina" describes implementing the front quarter attack orders from headquarters. He was no coward, but he was SCARED STIFF doing this! With the huge combined closing speed, he felt like he was going to lead his Jagdgeschwader in a mass suicide collision with the bombers. What's more, all of those pilots were scared of the B-17's! 0.50 cal is a beast! A person hit by one of those pretty much has a huge hunk of their body turned into mist!
Infact the ME-163's weapon that fired vertical was called "JagerFaust" or "Hunters Fist"
The weapon contained multiple 50mm projectiles to make sure that a single hit was more that enough to destroy a bomber.
IV./JG 54 should be read as fourth 'Gruppe' of 'Jagdgeschwader' 54. In July 1944 fourth 'Gruppe' consisted of 10th, 11th and 12th 'Staffel' (and 'Stab').
hello, er.., so, my grandfather was a mechanic in the Royal Thai Airforce and he introduced me to aireal combat the classic legends of aireal combat like the Spitfire. So really I also have my roots in combat aviation. (and btw i live in Australia)
18:40 "War crime"? Well, this is exactly the tactic that the Allies used against the Me 262 - hover around the German airbases and bounce the Me 262"s as they returned home low on fuel and unable to maneuver. Same with the Me 163 Komet.
Yeah,it´s only a war crime when the "bad guys" do it.😉
A pilot crash landing is rather different. He's going down anyway and you open fire simply for a cheap "kill", or from mere spite.
@@RO8s Yes,exactly like defenceless landing planes.And,yes for the cheap kills,but not out of spite,because simply they could.
At 14:19 is a Bf110 shooting down that Hurricane. I can tell from the canon fire grouping close together.
The photo cell in the ME163 was a staring cell and did not look for the shadow but change in light. The actual bomber was seen as low light vs the sky.
Kinda amazing to think about the fact that the film at 26:40 was recorded on the very same day that operation Valkyrie was taking place. While this man was shooting down his enemy, his leader Adolf Hitler was being blown up and narrowly escaping death.
My understanding is that hartman served exclusive;y on the eastern front - hence his large tally of allied planes, which significantly devalues his score, since soviet planes and pilots were markedly inferior to german pilots and planes . Unless that hurricane was in soviet service (a number of us and british planes were used by the soviets) it wasnt a hartman victory.
Good stuff. I watched a bit of footage just before this showing an attack on a b17. It was some really clear footage of debris trailing away from the bomber as it is being hit. The fighter was almost straight and level obviously knocked out the tail and ball positions and just hammering away.
Makes me wonder how many fighters were taken out by debris from their targets.
Yes, but head-on attacks at closing speed also gives only fleeting firing time to attacking aircraft too.
That WW2 must've been terrifying! I'm just glad no one got hurt.
Second time watching this; very well done. Wonder if with advances in digital technology it would be possible to enhance the film and greatly increase the clarity/definition. This was done in the "They Shall Not Grow Old" documentary with WWI-era film which was even more primitive than the filmstock used in WWII.
1st clip shows the fighter was attacking thru flack bursts. I had read previously that usually they attacked only after AA fire was suspended. Perhaps it came later in the war when they were ordered to attack whenever the opportunity arose?