@coldbedsheets I couldn't give a monkey's about the US and it's 'wealth.' How many TRILLION dollars DEBT does the US have?! lol Wealth?! You live off credit and loans-and one day, the US will have to pay the piper. China owns a large amount of US debt-one day, when it is opportune for them to do so, they will call it in. Within 15 years, China will outstrip US GDP, they have already overhaulled Japan-ahead of schedule. Enjoy your 'wealth' whilst it lasts. US= A busted flush- GAME OVER.
Debt in nominal numbers doesn't matter. It's the PERCENT of debt that a country is in that matters. And newsflash, britain is 400% in debt, while the u.s. is only 99%. I can send you the link if need be.
And no, the U.S. has the highest per capita personal income, which has nothing to do with loans.
The reason why our country takes out loans is because it spends a lot, not because it's poor. We still make almost 3x more than the 2nd richest country, china.
@coldbedsheets Please do quantify what you mean by 400% in debt. If you are suggesting that we are in dept to the tune of 400% of GDP, that is complete nonsense. Italy has a national debt that represents 120% of their GDP, Britain's finances are much healthier than that. 400% of what? If the US is so rich & powerful, why is it you cannot afford to spend money on NASA projects? The US has effectively shelved it's space programme. The US survives on credit & loans-you live way beyond your means.
@coldbedsheets Please, do not try and pull the wool.The space shuttle has been retired-early. The US is reliant on Russia and it's 1960's rocket technology-as proven this week with the Russian's transporting crew members to the international space station. NASA has no new vehicle projects under development. The idea of sending a mission to Mars has been quietly shelved. Look what NASA did in the 60's & early 70's and look where NASA is today. The US is less powerful than 40 yrs ago in real terms
"NASA has no new vehicle projects under development"
This is because they are privatizing the program, and hiring private corporations. Saying that we aren't constructing a rocket transport is laughably untrue.
Go and look up Space X- falcon 9, and other rockets from them
@coldbedsheets First of all, at no point did I say China would overhaul the US economy by 2015. The concensus amongst those economists(who know a tad more than you) believe China will rise to become the no 1 economy is that it will occurr between 2025-30, given China's rate of growth. The FACT is, China overhauled Japan several years ahead of predictions. In terms of influence, sorry, bu the Empire had far more influence. Ask Indian's about their railway network for starters.
@coldbedsheets The very fact that NASA, which previously operated on a , 'money no object' basis has to 'SAVE MONEY,' speaks volumes. Clearly, in REAL terms, the US is far less potent than it was in the 60's. NASA spent money like there was no tomorrow, the US was engaged in a hugely expensive war in Vietnam involving 500,000 soldiers, the biggest helicopter fleet in the world etc etc. China has over 1,000,000 men under arms. Her technology is coming on at a tremendous rate-it's a matter of time
@coldbedsheets Considering NASA's allegedly larger budget than all other agencies combined, China & India are busy little bees aren't they? China has an extensive sapce programme and regularly launches it's own rockets. They are openly talking about a manned moon shot within a few year from now. What is NASA doing? Scrapping the shuttle and shelving it's plans to go to Mars- you can thank Obama for that.
You mistakenly think that NASA is involved ONLY in space flight. They have MANY different agendas. China regularly launching rockets, does not in any way show that it's catching up to NASA. North korea launches rockets for gods sake.
"and shelving it's plans to go to Mars- you can thank Obama for that"
Wow i can't let you make this mistake again. I have already proven to you that the mars program is NOT shelved several times now.
The largest amount of U.S. debt is actually held by U.S. citizens, unlike other country's debt, like your own.
And no, china won't outstrip US GDP in 15 years. The same thing was said about Japan in the 80's-90's. Their GDP is already slowing down. Yes, it's still a large growth, but it's still slowing down.
And again, the uk has 4x more % of debt than the US AND we're growing faster.
@coldbedsheets China's rate of economic growth from 1978 until the current time has been huge, no other nation has developed it's economy so rapidly in history. China overhaulled Japan in 2011, some years ahead of economists predictions. No other economy in the world has a rate of growth that comes close to that of China. Their population is huge, labour costs are low, they will simply outproduce the US. The West cannot compete against them in terms of manufacturing/labour costs.
@coldbedsheets You are naive to believe that China will not become a fully fledged superpower.Obama's admistration was quick to recognise that fact in the early months of him coming to office. He actually stated that by 2025, the US will not be the sole superpower, he also acknowledged that China will have increasing influence/say in world affairs. It is very myopic to believe that the US will forever be the no 1 power. Look at history, no nation EVER remains at the top of the tree indefinitely
Saying we won't be the SOLE superpower, does not say china will be stronger than us. And you ignored the fact that you stated they will overtake us by 2015 which is impossible to do.
No other nation has had as much influence as America. Half of britain's countries in the commonwealth were in Africa. Did britain have military bases on 139 countries? Did britain have a currency that controls 61% of the world's foreign reserves?
@coldbedsheets $20 Billion dollars- is that all? That equates to roughly £10 billion pounds. Britain spends between 35-38 Billion pounds on defence alone. Given the enormous cost of space technology (Research WHO builds many of your satelites and provides the glass panels for space vehicles-guess who?) $20 billion dollars is chicken feed. Face facts, the US led the Space Race for years, now there is no race, it has largely stagnated. Meanwhile, China is considering a manned trip to the moon.
Wow. china is trying to have a man mission to the moon. It would be a great feat if we didn't do it 40 years ago.
We're planning a trip to Mars, which is WAY more advanced and difficult.
Again, 20 billion is a LOT for a space race. In 1969 America spent around $23 billion in converted dollars. And that was with the HUGE operations they did.
Please go google "top 100 most important inventions".
You will see that the largest portion of those are American.
They are combined the three most interesting people in the entire world. They have driven Italian and German super cars across Europe, American muscle cars across the Salt flats in Utah, climbed a volcano in a Pickup truck, and flown fighter jets over England. One has even been to space. Ladies and gents let me introduce you to Jeremy Clarkson, James May, and Richard Hammond the three most interesting men in the world.
Clarkson going berserk and May smiling like the Cheshire Cat, but Hammond looks like a teenaged boy who's just reached for a girl's knickers, and she's lifted her hips to help move things along...a great first-moment in any man's life!!!
Look. I'm American. (Texan to be exact) and anyone who is trying to argue that America did "more" than Britain in WW2 is just EMBARRASSING our country with your tactlessness. The British were AMAZING in WW2! Sure we helped supply them up until we officially stepped in. But their courage and heart were beyond anything anybody had ever seen. Don't denigrate that by trying to argue useless statistics. We all did our part. Britain suffered more than we ever did. And came back fighting. Bravo!
The USA still did WAY more than britain in ww2 EVEN THOUGH we came in late. Nearly 80% of the ammunitions dropped on europe and germany by the allies were from American factories. And 85% of the food, fuel, ammo, supplies, medical equipment etc used by ALL OF THE ALLIES were from America.
Even Churchill said this about America entering the war-
"So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder"
@coldbedsheets When did the USAAF ever mount a 1000 bomber raid? British bombers carried more than twice the payload of a B17 or B24 and the aircraft and bombs were produced in British factories. Show me the net tonnage of bombs dropped by the USAAF vs the RAF.
"There is no doubt that without the u.s. you would be speaking german." Nonsense. 80% of German casualties were on the Eastern front. Read Glantz for some real history. I owe you nothing.
On d-day the USAAF had 1,922 bombers compared to britain's 624.
Total Number Of Weapons During WWII
World/USA
Aircraft--542,000/283,000(52%)
Vehicles--5.1 million/2.47 million(48%)
Also, our B-17 had an overload of 17,000 pounds of bombs. Show me which british bomber had 34,000 bomb payload.
And the B-29 Super Fortress carried up to 9 tons of bombs. Show me which british bomber carried 18 tons of bombs. Not only that, but we had on average over TWICE as many bombers as britain.
@coldbedsheets "Also, our B-17 had an overload of 17,000 pounds of bombs. Show me which british bomber had 34,000 bomb payload." It did not. Even the B-29 could not carry as much as a Lancaster. The B-17 had a very small bomb bay and the USAAF didn't have big enough bombs to make up that kind of payload. Long range (England to Germany) it carried about 4,000. Lancasters and Halifaxes almost always carried at least 8,000.
@coldbedsheets "And the B-29 Super Fortress carried up to 9 tons of bombs. Show me which british bomber carried 18 tons of bombs. Not only that, but we had on average over TWICE as many bombers as britain." Wrong again. Show me a B-29 which could carry a Grand Slam. The US never fielded as many bombers as Britain did and they didn't have the payload/range capability.
Bullshit. I can send you the url if you want. We had well over 1900 bombers on d-day. Everything i stated can be backed up with urls.
And all you have is a retired army personell? LOLOL
AND like i said, there were 542,000 aircraft total(all sides put together)in WW2. 283,000 of those were AMERICAN. And there were 5.1 million total vehicles. 2.47 million of those were AMERICAN.
You say American strategy is lying, yet your only source of info is from a retired American...epic fail
@coldbedsheets "Bullshit. I can send you the url if you want. We had well over 1900 bombers on d-day. Everything i stated can be backed up with urls." Not 4 engined heavies, which is what you claimed.
"You say American strategy is lying, yet your only source of info is from a retired American...epic fail" Epic fail yourself. Glantz is probably the best American historian going. Read his stuff before you knock it you ignorant cunt.
"Not 4 engined heavies, which is what you claimed"
??? when did i claim this? Please quote me.
How can you say we didn't save the world from hitler when over 50% of all the planes in the war on BOTH sides put together were American....how could you possibly say this....
""You say American strategy is lying," No, I say your strategy is lying"
And i quote-
"do what the American right does best...Lie and lie"
@coldbedsheets "How can you say we didn't save the world from hitler when over 50% of all the planes in the war on BOTH sides put together were American....how could you possibly say this...." Because WWII was a lot more than just Hitler. Like I said: the US won the Pacific War in a canter. The Soviets did all the heavy lifting in Europe. Now you can say what you like but you can't alter the FACT that 80% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front.
@coldbedsheets "You say American strategy is lying," No, actually, I didn't say that, I said it was a tactic of the American right and most Americans are far less arrogant than you. You can read, can't you? Now this is a video about Spitfires and it doesn't need yet another brainwashed, jingoistic, nationalist zealot like you chanting "We won the war" to spoil it for everyone else so kindly fuck off.
I apologise to others who may have found this annoying. For what it's worth, I did too.
How can you say "i didn't say that" when its right there in black and white.....how....
The fact that 80% of the german casualties were on the eastern front was only because hitler invaded russia. Secondly, it's not just casualties that end the war, its infrastructure, economy, weapons, etc. And the fact that half of the world's weapons were American shows you how big of a role we played. It was surely a hell of a lot bigger role than britain.
@coldbedsheets - The US did supply the majority of weapons.They didn't enter the war for three years!. They remained 'neutral' yet produced and supplied weapons the Russia and England under the lend lease program. Mainland America didn't suffer bombing from it's enemies. It's production of weapons proceeds uninterrupted.If England fell,no daylight or night time bombing of German targets. Russia falls, Germans support Japan in the Pacific. It would have been a different world.Fortress England.
"The US never fielded as many bombers as Britain did and they didn't have the payload/range capability"
Wow...how could you possibly say such nonsense. You clearly know NOTHING about ww2 cause the facts are right there in black and white. We had HALF of the world's total aircraft in ww2. Go and look up all of the bombers in ww2. You will see that every American one, there were built considerably more.
@coldbedsheets "Not only that, but we had on average over TWICE as many bombers as britain." Not true. Piekalkiewicz reports the biggest concentration of US 4 engine bombers around D-Day was 750. The only American raid I can find which had more than 1000 was 1083, dropping a total of about 1800 tons...not a very big average bomb load was it? LOL!!
Longer range? The b-29 superfortress had a range of 3,250 miles. Show me which british bomber had a longer range. It also had a service ceiling higher than any other british bomber. Are you done failing? LOLOL
I still can't BELIEVE you actually thought britain had more bombers than the usa....wow.. that's the fail of the century man. ;)
Just face it. The USA was the strongest country then, and definitely the strongest country now....in the world....ever....
@coldbedsheets Naturally you were going to do EVERYTHING out of context. The B-17 could not carry more than 4,500 to Germany and British bombers regularly carried double that over the same distance. They used 8000lb cookies. Did the US have an equivalent? No. You asked about the B-29 payload, not its range so your point is irrelevant (even though the B-29 was the best bomber of the war).
"You asked about the B-29 payload, not its range so your point is irrelevant"
And i quote-
"as Britain did and they didn't have the payload/range capability"
It was YOU who brought up range you moron.
And regardless of each plane's payload, the u.s. undoubtedly had a WAY larger number of planes, as i have proven for instance on D-day where we had over 3x more bombers than britain. that's a FACT.
@coldbedsheets ". The USA was the strongest country then, and definitely the strongest country now....in the world....ever...." Nobody says it wasn't.
As for now, well the American century lasted about 7 years. Just face it.
"As for now, well the American century lasted about 7 years"
Let's see...we have by far the most capable and powerful military force on the planet. We have the largest single economy in the world.....so what are you talking about?
lol silly little person you are. China owns us? Because we take loans and treasuries out from them, they own us??? LOL it's our fortune 500 companies that keep their population employed. Its our dollar that they use for reserves. Don't talk about shit you don't know
@coldbedsheets You are talking bollocks about the load carrying capability of the B-17. It carried a maximum load of 8000 lb on SHORT range raids. It carried a mere 4,000 lb of bombs to Berlin. A standard load for a Lancaster to Berlin was 14,000 lb. Max load for a Lanc was 22,000 lb- the Grandslam bomb, which NO Yank bomber could accomodate, none of them had a large enough bomb bay. Mosquito's carried 4,000 lbs to Berlin with a crew of TWO at much higher cruising speeds.
@coldbedsheets Your figures for the respective numbers of bombers is laughable. Have you ever heard of the RAF 1000 bomber raids?? We were mounting such raids in 42/43. By 44 RAF BC was at it's strongest, with way more than 624 ac. We manufactured over 7,400 Lancaster and over 6,000 Halifax bombers, not to mention the Stirling, Wellington and Mosquito bombers. No B-29 could carry the 10 tonne Grandslam bomb, the bomb bay simply could not accomodate it, unlike the Lancaster.
Regardless of what you think, over half of all the aircraft used in ww2(counting up ALL aircraft from both sides) were from America.
I can send you the source if need be.
The same goes for vehicles(not just tanks).
And the lancaster used a bomb bay modification to carry the grand slam. The b-29 could have done the same thing, after all, it did have a higher payload.
@coldbedsheets "The B-29 could have done the same thing....." Wudda, shudda, cudda- but it didn't did it? The USAAF quietly adopted British fire bombing tactics over Japanese cities. The B-29's actually bombed at no more than 20,000, they tried to do so at 30,000 & the accuracy was extremely poor. The US dropped a mix of HE & incendiary bombs- just like the RAF did. At least we were honest about, unlike the US which attempted to adopt the moral high ground-denying it engaged in area bombing.
Again, the lancaster used MODIFICATIONS. Any plane could use modifications. The truth remains that the b-29 had a larger regular load AND longer range than the lancaster.
And you don't seem to be understanding what i said when i said "half of all the aircraft used in ww2 was from America".
What i mean is that if you counted up ALL the aircraft in ww2 from both sides, you would find that half of them were from America. Do you understand now, simpleton?
@coldbedsheets Please do feel free to provide your evidence to back up your assertion that 50% of aircraft in WW2 were of American manufacture. Try not to personalise matters with childish insults issued from behind the safety of your keyboard 3,000 miles away, it just makes you look weak. The B-29 did not serve in Europe, so the Lancaster was by far the finest bomber in that theatre, it was even considered to drop the A bomb. Mods or not, it was more capable than either the B-17, or B-24.
@coldbedsheets OWNED? Really? Let's examine the FACTS shall we. Total tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany by the USAAF? 623,418 tonnes- very good. Total tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany by the RAF? A 'mere' 964,644 tonnes. Clearly you have a strange concept of 'owning' somebody. Typical Yank mentality- obsessed with sheer numbers, never mind the FACT RAF bombers carried far higher loads and for much greater ranges. We did MORE, with LESS- that's called, 'EFFICIENCY.'
Once again, your numbers about the tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany has a fatal flaw. We were using only half of our power on europe, the other on japan.
And again, your bombers held more with modifications, the same can be said with any bomber. We used sheer numbers, which made it easier if one got shot down.
At the end of the day, the US military is stronger than the uk military on a level that is unparalleled. And we weren't even a real superpower until AFTER the war.
@coldbedsheets It matters not one jot, the FACT is, the RAF carried more of the burden in Europe than did the USAAF, something I suspect many Americans would be surprised by. It is irrelevant that Lancasters underwent modifications to their bomb bays in order to carried the 10 tonne Grandslam. Amazing, they removed the bomb doors, the front turret and the dorsal turret- radical stuff. NOT. The sole fact that counts is that they possessed the capability to lift the load.
"the RAF carried more of the burden in Europe than did the USAAF"
Once again you are ignoring that even if this were true it was because America was fighting two MAJOR fronts, pacific and european.
You seem to be clinging to talking about what America did and didn't do in WW2. No matter what you say, you will never be able to top the statistic of HALF of all weapons being manufactured in America. Sorry bro :(
@coldbedsheets Perhaps you would like to elucidate on what the British were doing on the SE Asian mainland?? Playing tiddly winks?? So what if half of all the weapons were 'allegedly' manufactured in the US. Who fought with them? Courage, sacrifice & victory rests with those at the sharp end, not people on a production line. It is the finger on the trigger that wins the victory ultimately.
Talking about what the british were doing in SE mainland can not even closely compare to what America is doing. Sorry, but America defeated japan, there is no argument there. Britain wasn't fighting a MAJOR war in the SE campaign. Nearly all of their military force was focused on Europe. Yes, they had battles there, but don't even try to say that they had equally the same amount of force applied in asia than they did in europe.
@coldbedsheets Clearly you are none too bright to issue such a ridiculous, contradictory statement re the war in the far east. On the one hand, you are presenting an argument that the defeat of the Japanese was an entirely American affair. You then refer to the role of the British on the SE Asian continent- thereby acknowledging that the British & CW forces played an active role in the defeat of Japan, thereby contradicting yourself. WW2 was a TOTAL WAR fought by many nations- NOT just the US.
@coldbedsheets Another great myth the US clings to is that it did not engage in area bombing. By denying doing so, the USAAF attempted to take the moral high ground, "We precision bombed, the 'nasty' Brits area bombed." Actually in 43, the USAAF took delivery of H2X- the British H2S radar system, renamed to make the Americans feel better about themselves. On receipt of thie technology, the USAAF sanctioned one major area bombing op per week until the end of the war. They also firebombed Japan.
@coldbedsheets The USAAF policy of daylight bombing was completely flawed and an act of folly. The USAAF (wrongly) believed that bombers with 10-12 0.5 Brownings in formation could fend off high speed fighters. They ignored the advice & bitter experience of the RAF, who tried unescorted daylight Ops early in WW2 and get annihilated. The Yanks knew better. That's why in 43, the USAAF suspended Ops over Germany after being crucified. They had to await the arrival of the P-51.
@coldbedsheets The daylight bombing campaign resulted in USAAF bombers carrying much smaller bomb loads than did the RAF. Due to the demand for armour & more .50 Brownings, the US bombers had to sacrifice bomb carrying capacity due to the extra weight of armour/guns/crew. Also, the USAAF crowed about 'dropping bombs in a pickle barrel from 20,000ft with the Norden sight. Utter nonsense. Only 20% of US bombs dropped landed with a 1000 ft radius of the designated tgt.
@coldbedsheets How interesting. Regardless of what you say, the vast majority of aircraft utlised by the RAF & CW forces were either British built, or British designed. The RAF used a comparatively small number of US aircraft. A small number of B-17's were used by the RAF as EW platforms. Coastal command used a relatively small number of B-24's & Catalina's. The Lanc & Halifax formed the backbone of BC. Crow about materiel as much as you like-men win wars and we did more than our fair share.
@coldbedsheets Does it hurt? No, not a bit. Britain was THE world superpower for TWO CENTURIES. During that time, we built up the largest Empire the world has seen. Our influence in, and contributions too the world in terms of invention and creativity is unsurpassed. Next time you get on a train, or a jet airliner, remember WHO invented them. China has overhaulled Japan's economy five years ahead of schedule. You are deluding yourself if you think the US can compete with China in the long run.
Damn that must suck having to relish about britain's empire in the PAST. Yeah, and that largest empire you speak of, over half of the countries in it were African. What a great achievement!
Also, i can send you a link to an article that lists the top 100 most important inventions of all time, in which America far surpasses britain.
Yes, i suppose china will triple it's economy in 5 years....that sounds VERY realistic.
@coldbedsheets Our depth of history provides Britain with a tremendous sense of identity and culture-something America lacks, hence the American obsession with claiming to be an 'Irish' American, or having 'English' origins. Aside from the Romans, no other nation comes remotely close in terms of influence & invention. Go and research the sheer volume of world changing inventions that originated from Britain. We have given the world a tad more than Elvis, hotdogs, coke and Nike trainers.
@coldbedsheets Evidently you have forgotten how the USAAF used the Spitfire V & IX, & also the Mosquito for photo-recce duties. You have forgotten how Britain was way ahead of the US in radar technology- go & research the cavitity magnatron which transformed the power and clarity of radar images. Go and research H2S radar, known to the USAAF as H2X (NOT INVENTED HERE SYNDROME). Research WHO planned D-DAY, it was NOT the US- research Gen Morgan. Reseach Op Fortitude- pure British genius.
I'm sorry but I have to step in here at the "most of the bombing campaigns were done by the Americans." That is so insulting I don't know where to begin. Both the RAF and other CommonWealth countries were very much involved in nighttime bombing raids. Don't even ATTEMPT to downplay the role of the Australians, New Zealanders and of course the Cdns. We were all far more involved in the raids before you Americans decided to join.
@coldbedsheets Yes indeed, where would the Americans have been without the BRITISH Merlin engine, that transformed the mediocre Allison engined P-51 Mustang into the finest escort fighter of WW2. Where would the US have been without Britain's radar technology eg H2S, or as the USAAF called it, H2X. Where would the US have been without Bletchley Park intelligence-which is estimated to have shortened the war by a 'mere' 18 months? Not so cut and dried is it?
@TheCanadiangirl4 Asking Americans to appreciate that RAF Bomber Command sustained 55,500 men KIA between 1939-45, compared to their bomber crew losses of 30,000 KIA is a big ask! lol Also, whilst most of them crow about the B-17 being the best WW2 bomber, they conveniently forget the Lancaster carried a vastly heavioer bombload ie B-17 carried a MAX of 8,000lb on short rng missions. They only carried 4000 lb to Berlin. Lancs carried 14,000lb to Berlin as a standard, and could carry 22,000lb.
@TheCanadiangirl4 The Americans also forget about the 1,000 bomber raids mounted by the RAF, which they commenced with in 1943. They also forget about H2S- the British ground terrain radar that improved bombing accuracy considerably. They used something called H2X, guess what it was? Yes-the BRITISH H2S system! They also made huge overblown claims about the accuracy of their bombing sight. In reality, there was little, if any difference in accuracy between the RAF & USAAF.
@TheCanadiangirl4 The USAAF showed (typical) US arrogance with regard to mouting a daylight bombing campaign. They refused to listen to advice from the battle experienced RAF, which tried the same tactic in 1940 & got slaughtered. They insisted that bombers could defend themselves successfully against fighters. That's why in mid 1943, the US halted raids over Germany for several months because their formations were being massacred! They had to wait for the P-51 (BRITISH MERLIN ENGINE) to arrive.
"The Spitfire saved the world from Hitler". What bullshit. Comic book nonsense for naive little boys. What about the Hurricane? What about the Royal Navy? What about radar? Do some reading first Jeremy, you tosspot.
I'd love to go up in a Spit over Kent but I'm not about to shoot my load all over the inside of the cockpit.
@Camerameister You are correct that everyone played a part. One point however is the Spitfire did make a massive difference. The Hurricane was already obsolete in terms of an interceptor by 1940. She did not have the capability to match the Emil or keep up with the later Frieda and Gustav models. Had we not had the Spitfire the BoB would have been a bigger struggle in the air.
So Jeremy is correct in the context of keeping Britain free for later in the war, just his patriotism was a little OTT.
@HamishUK In 1940, 2/3 of Fighter Command was Hurricanes, 1/3 Spits. The kill ratio is almost the same, as is the loss ratio. The RAF could not have won the BoB with just one type. They needed both so the struggle point is actually valid but your point about Friedas and Gustavs is not. They were not in use in 1940! The Hurri could not out climb or out dive a 109E but neither could a Spit. The Spit was faster and more agile but the Hurri had the tightest turning circle of any of them.
@Camerameister I totally agree with you there. I was talking about growth potential beyond 1940 but I should stay on topic. The Spitfire and Emil were fairly evenly matched give or take pepper potting on turn / acceleration etc up to 16'000 feet. Above that altitude the Spit starts pulling ahead of the Emil in terms of speed. At 20k and above the Spitfire has the decided advantage. However had we been just Hurricane equipped the squadron's would have been at a large disadvantage.
@HamishUK That is simply not true. The Spitfire had far more development potential in it than the Hurricane but the Hurri was far from obsolete in 1940. It was quite capable of taking on a 109E and frequently did. Ask any of the pilots. They'll tell you that they'd rather have flown a Spit but they'd prefer a Hurri for war. The fact is that since 80% of combat is decided without the victim realising it, the matter is a moot point. The Hurricane was also a better gun platform.
@Camerameister That's pure fallacy on your part. The Hurri I agree was often forgotten but it was not prefered over the Spitfire for war. I can ask any pilot as I am a former 'modern' day one myself and the boys in our RBL will praise the Hurri' but over the Spit as a fighter that is simply not true. I agree the element of surpise played a massive part in the BoB but we are discussing semantics. The fact remains the Spit was the quantum leap in fighter design had we not had it then...well...
@HamishUK "The fact remains the Spit was the quantum leap in fighter design" I have already said this but in 1940 the Spitfire still suffered from production bugs and poor accuracy (due to wing flex and gun grouping). The Hurri could take more battle damage than the Spit. Its disadvantages were that it was a bit slower and had a tendency to burn. Very little combat took place above 20K in 1940 And the statistics don't lie. The Hurri's BoB stats are almost the same as the Spit. Look them up.
@HamishUK Britain suffers from the same silly Spitfire snobbery as the Luftwaffe did. I have never said that the Hurri was superior. That's your dream. My position is that the difference was a lot less than what people think. But to claim that the Spitfire won the BoB and kept 'itler out in 1940, as many do, is a myth. You can't get an accurate picture of what happens if you don't make a clinical assessment. I have been reading about the BoB for more than 30 years.
@Camerameister Whilst it is true that the Hurricane achieved more kills than the Spitfire during the BoB, you are missing the salient point. Hurricanes predominantly shot down bombers-not 109's. Why? The Hurri was a better gun platform than the Spit, so it was more effective at concentrating fire on the bombers. The battle could not have been without the Spitfire because it took on the 109's for the most part, which the Hurri was less able to do due to inferior climb rate and lower speed.
It's a shame that the hawker hurrican, the work horse of britains air force back then is over looked now. Still, i'll back jeremy up, there is no better feeling than being in a spitfire over britain, makes you realise that it is a country worth fighting for
@carlosmurphy4u Well, in contrast to the Americans, the Brits just don't say it every and every day again... *g* I am a fan of the ME-109, but the Spitfire really is the absolute masterpiece of British enginieering.... god I am jealous... :D
@carlosmurphy4u maybe but it took them 2 and a half years to get involved...and that was due to getting spanked at pearl harbour..if that didnt happen i doubt they would have even joined!!!
anyway hitler couldnt have invaded because the raf's big wing destroyed the luftwaffe and therefore made operation sealion(the invasion of Britian) an impossibility
Britian stood defiant for 2 and a half years on her own!!!!
@carlosmurphy4u Let's put it in simple terms- If Britain lost the BoB, Germany would have achieved air superiority & been in a position to attempt to invade. If Germany invaded Britain, guess what? The US would be totally isolated, unprepared & in no position to try & take on Germany & Japan alone. If Germany invaded Britain, there could never have been a D-Day operation. So yes, the Spitfire & Hurricane DID save the world from Adolph.
I love the sound it makes
Flatine1 3 months ago
James: *woo lololol this is pretty cool*
Richard: *tee heee cool*
Jeremy: YEEEEEEESSSSSS!!!! BLOODY HELL YEEAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
zellarsDD777 3 months ago
If Carlsberg built piston engined fighter aircraft............
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
continued-
I think someone's angry that America is the strongest, richest country in the world.....Lol U MAD?
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets I couldn't give a monkey's about the US and it's 'wealth.' How many TRILLION dollars DEBT does the US have?! lol Wealth?! You live off credit and loans-and one day, the US will have to pay the piper. China owns a large amount of US debt-one day, when it is opportune for them to do so, they will call it in. Within 15 years, China will outstrip US GDP, they have already overhaulled Japan-ahead of schedule. Enjoy your 'wealth' whilst it lasts. US= A busted flush- GAME OVER.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
Debt in nominal numbers doesn't matter. It's the PERCENT of debt that a country is in that matters. And newsflash, britain is 400% in debt, while the u.s. is only 99%. I can send you the link if need be.
And no, the U.S. has the highest per capita personal income, which has nothing to do with loans.
The reason why our country takes out loans is because it spends a lot, not because it's poor. We still make almost 3x more than the 2nd richest country, china.
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets Please do quantify what you mean by 400% in debt. If you are suggesting that we are in dept to the tune of 400% of GDP, that is complete nonsense. Italy has a national debt that represents 120% of their GDP, Britain's finances are much healthier than that. 400% of what? If the US is so rich & powerful, why is it you cannot afford to spend money on NASA projects? The US has effectively shelved it's space programme. The US survives on credit & loans-you live way beyond your means.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
"The US has effectively shelved it's space programme"
What nonsense. Nasa PRIVATIZED rocket launches, that doesn't mean they're not working.
They still get $15 billion in funding which is by far the largest for any space company.
We scrapped the moon mission because we're focusing on going to mars.
How do we survive on credit and loans when we have the highest personal income?
And again, china's economy is already slowing down. There's no way it can triple in 5 years.
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets Please, do not try and pull the wool.The space shuttle has been retired-early. The US is reliant on Russia and it's 1960's rocket technology-as proven this week with the Russian's transporting crew members to the international space station. NASA has no new vehicle projects under development. The idea of sending a mission to Mars has been quietly shelved. Look what NASA did in the 60's & early 70's and look where NASA is today. The US is less powerful than 40 yrs ago in real terms
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
Comment removed
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
continued-
"NASA has no new vehicle projects under development"
This is because they are privatizing the program, and hiring private corporations. Saying that we aren't constructing a rocket transport is laughably untrue.
Go and look up Space X- falcon 9, and other rockets from them
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
Continued-.
Russian space agency budget- $3.8 billion.
European space agency budget-$5.6 billion.
Chinese space agency budget-$1.3 billion.
NASA budget- $19 billion.
The fact that we are using russian space craft is only to save money.
"The idea of sending a mission to Mars has been quietly shelved" Utter nonsense. Type in youtube- "Space X CEO bets manned mission to mars"
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets First of all, at no point did I say China would overhaul the US economy by 2015. The concensus amongst those economists(who know a tad more than you) believe China will rise to become the no 1 economy is that it will occurr between 2025-30, given China's rate of growth. The FACT is, China overhauled Japan several years ahead of predictions. In terms of influence, sorry, bu the Empire had far more influence. Ask Indian's about their railway network for starters.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
China outgrew japan, because japan's economy is stagnant. They haven't had good growth for years.
The opposite can be said for USA where we've had constant growth for several quarters in a row.
And this is all counting on if china can sustain their growth, which many economists do not see happening. I advise you to google it.
A railway in india does not negate the fact that over half of the world's money stems from American control, and many other American factors.
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets The very fact that NASA, which previously operated on a , 'money no object' basis has to 'SAVE MONEY,' speaks volumes. Clearly, in REAL terms, the US is far less potent than it was in the 60's. NASA spent money like there was no tomorrow, the US was engaged in a hugely expensive war in Vietnam involving 500,000 soldiers, the biggest helicopter fleet in the world etc etc. China has over 1,000,000 men under arms. Her technology is coming on at a tremendous rate-it's a matter of time
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
So you're chastising NASA for saving a few bucks? They still have a higher budget than all of the other major space agencies COMBINED.
Of course our NASA program was more "potent" in the 60's. That was during the space race. Duh.
"That equates to roughly £10 billion pounds".
Are you serious? So you're going to ignore the fact that NASA's budget is well over twice as much as the rest of the major space agencies COMBINED?
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets Considering NASA's allegedly larger budget than all other agencies combined, China & India are busy little bees aren't they? China has an extensive sapce programme and regularly launches it's own rockets. They are openly talking about a manned moon shot within a few year from now. What is NASA doing? Scrapping the shuttle and shelving it's plans to go to Mars- you can thank Obama for that.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
You mistakenly think that NASA is involved ONLY in space flight. They have MANY different agendas. China regularly launching rockets, does not in any way show that it's catching up to NASA. North korea launches rockets for gods sake.
"and shelving it's plans to go to Mars- you can thank Obama for that"
Wow i can't let you make this mistake again. I have already proven to you that the mars program is NOT shelved several times now.
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
The largest amount of U.S. debt is actually held by U.S. citizens, unlike other country's debt, like your own.
And no, china won't outstrip US GDP in 15 years. The same thing was said about Japan in the 80's-90's. Their GDP is already slowing down. Yes, it's still a large growth, but it's still slowing down.
And again, the uk has 4x more % of debt than the US AND we're growing faster.
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets China's rate of economic growth from 1978 until the current time has been huge, no other nation has developed it's economy so rapidly in history. China overhaulled Japan in 2011, some years ahead of economists predictions. No other economy in the world has a rate of growth that comes close to that of China. Their population is huge, labour costs are low, they will simply outproduce the US. The West cannot compete against them in terms of manufacturing/labour costs.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
Wrong yet again. Qatar, Singapore, Paraguay, and India all have higher recent growth rates than china.
And go and google "the myth of china's growth".
Also, even IF china surpassed the U.S. gdp, that won't make them a supwerpower or more of a supwerpower than the U.S.
Go and research what "superpower" means.
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets You are naive to believe that China will not become a fully fledged superpower.Obama's admistration was quick to recognise that fact in the early months of him coming to office. He actually stated that by 2025, the US will not be the sole superpower, he also acknowledged that China will have increasing influence/say in world affairs. It is very myopic to believe that the US will forever be the no 1 power. Look at history, no nation EVER remains at the top of the tree indefinitely
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
Saying we won't be the SOLE superpower, does not say china will be stronger than us. And you ignored the fact that you stated they will overtake us by 2015 which is impossible to do.
No other nation has had as much influence as America. Half of britain's countries in the commonwealth were in Africa. Did britain have military bases on 139 countries? Did britain have a currency that controls 61% of the world's foreign reserves?
N.O.P.E
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
oh yeah, i forgot NASA's budget is actually closer to $20 billion than $15 billion
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets $20 Billion dollars- is that all? That equates to roughly £10 billion pounds. Britain spends between 35-38 Billion pounds on defence alone. Given the enormous cost of space technology (Research WHO builds many of your satelites and provides the glass panels for space vehicles-guess who?) $20 billion dollars is chicken feed. Face facts, the US led the Space Race for years, now there is no race, it has largely stagnated. Meanwhile, China is considering a manned trip to the moon.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
Wow. china is trying to have a man mission to the moon. It would be a great feat if we didn't do it 40 years ago.
We're planning a trip to Mars, which is WAY more advanced and difficult.
Again, 20 billion is a LOT for a space race. In 1969 America spent around $23 billion in converted dollars. And that was with the HUGE operations they did.
Please go google "top 100 most important inventions".
You will see that the largest portion of those are American.
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
that must be the most amazing site to see! unless you're a german bomber of course!
MrSixBricks 3 months ago
i wish more people thought like you guys, I currently live in TX. ant I could not agree more qith you
TheLegoman0077 4 months ago
The Spitfire had its place for sure, but the Hawker Hurricane deserves much of the credit for the Battle of Britain.
rlgdestroyu 4 months ago 8
man, i love that dude screaming the whole time. so awesome Lol
nimox57 4 months ago
Your welcome......-America ......well, old America...new America ehhh not soo much :)
dickcheese663 4 months ago
@dickcheese663 What on earth are you talking about?
Zero7evenX 4 months ago
Richard Hammond is sooo funny in this...
calvin0433 5 months ago
brings smile on my face :-)
thenoti1 5 months ago
Jeremy says this every time he flies a plane
eginators34 5 months ago
hamonds face XD
damondesilva 5 months ago 4
Jeremy has flown an f-15.
WhatchThisHD 5 months ago
"...I'm wearing goggles..."
"...tacka-tacka-tacka..."
Oh how I wish I was that lucky...
steviep53 5 months ago
They are combined the three most interesting people in the entire world. They have driven Italian and German super cars across Europe, American muscle cars across the Salt flats in Utah, climbed a volcano in a Pickup truck, and flown fighter jets over England. One has even been to space. Ladies and gents let me introduce you to Jeremy Clarkson, James May, and Richard Hammond the three most interesting men in the world.
blandis32 5 months ago
Clarkson going berserk and May smiling like the Cheshire Cat, but Hammond looks like a teenaged boy who's just reached for a girl's knickers, and she's lifted her hips to help move things along...a great first-moment in any man's life!!!
jungkvist 6 months ago
when you guys have airshows im pretty soure you can pay to ride in one.. they usually do it in the US.. idk if they do it there though
Reyrliekmudkipz 7 months ago
Gawd, Hammond it such a prat....!
HeavensGremlin 8 months ago
Comment removed
jokerman583 8 months ago
DAGGA DAGGA DAGGA! HAHA! WE ARE ALREADY WINNING THIS ONE!!!
Man i love how happy he sounds xD!
Timpich44 9 months ago
I sat in one of these beautiful machines! such amazing British machinery! proves we Brits know how to build an Aircraft!
TheRobloxfighter 10 months ago
HSBC logo on a SPITFIRE?... classic lol...
xMandalorex 10 months ago
Look. I'm American. (Texan to be exact) and anyone who is trying to argue that America did "more" than Britain in WW2 is just EMBARRASSING our country with your tactlessness. The British were AMAZING in WW2! Sure we helped supply them up until we officially stepped in. But their courage and heart were beyond anything anybody had ever seen. Don't denigrate that by trying to argue useless statistics. We all did our part. Britain suffered more than we ever did. And came back fighting. Bravo!
logandarklighter 11 months ago 19
The USA still did WAY more than britain in ww2 EVEN THOUGH we came in late. Nearly 80% of the ammunitions dropped on europe and germany by the allies were from American factories. And 85% of the food, fuel, ammo, supplies, medical equipment etc used by ALL OF THE ALLIES were from America.
Even Churchill said this about America entering the war-
"So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder"
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets 80% of that is absolute rubbish. Hitler's fate was sealed in the Soviet Union. The Western campaign was only about 20%.
But I'm glad you brought up the Pacific campaign. The US won that in a canter.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@Camerameister
Absolute rubbish? Lol you brits have such funny insults. What are you saying is "rubbish"? Everything i listed was true.
When a german tank destroyed 1 allied tank we would build 10 more tanks.
When a german tank destroyed 1 allied fighter, we would build 10 more fighters.
There is no doubt that without the u.s. you would be speaking german.
Yes, 80% of the german soldiers were killed due to soviets, but most of the bombing campaigns were done by Americans.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets When did the USAAF ever mount a 1000 bomber raid? British bombers carried more than twice the payload of a B17 or B24 and the aircraft and bombs were produced in British factories. Show me the net tonnage of bombs dropped by the USAAF vs the RAF.
"There is no doubt that without the u.s. you would be speaking german." Nonsense. 80% of German casualties were on the Eastern front. Read Glantz for some real history. I owe you nothing.
Camerameister 1 year ago
On d-day the USAAF had 1,922 bombers compared to britain's 624.
Total Number Of Weapons During WWII
World/USA
Aircraft--542,000/283,000(52%)
Vehicles--5.1 million/2.47 million(48%)
Also, our B-17 had an overload of 17,000 pounds of bombs. Show me which british bomber had 34,000 bomb payload.
And the B-29 Super Fortress carried up to 9 tons of bombs. Show me which british bomber carried 18 tons of bombs. Not only that, but we had on average over TWICE as many bombers as britain.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@coldbedsheets "Also, our B-17 had an overload of 17,000 pounds of bombs. Show me which british bomber had 34,000 bomb payload." It did not. Even the B-29 could not carry as much as a Lancaster. The B-17 had a very small bomb bay and the USAAF didn't have big enough bombs to make up that kind of payload. Long range (England to Germany) it carried about 4,000. Lancasters and Halifaxes almost always carried at least 8,000.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets "And the B-29 Super Fortress carried up to 9 tons of bombs. Show me which british bomber carried 18 tons of bombs. Not only that, but we had on average over TWICE as many bombers as britain." Wrong again. Show me a B-29 which could carry a Grand Slam. The US never fielded as many bombers as Britain did and they didn't have the payload/range capability.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@Camerameister
Bullshit. I can send you the url if you want. We had well over 1900 bombers on d-day. Everything i stated can be backed up with urls.
And all you have is a retired army personell? LOLOL
AND like i said, there were 542,000 aircraft total(all sides put together)in WW2. 283,000 of those were AMERICAN. And there were 5.1 million total vehicles. 2.47 million of those were AMERICAN.
You say American strategy is lying, yet your only source of info is from a retired American...epic fail
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets "Bullshit. I can send you the url if you want. We had well over 1900 bombers on d-day. Everything i stated can be backed up with urls." Not 4 engined heavies, which is what you claimed.
"You say American strategy is lying, yet your only source of info is from a retired American...epic fail" Epic fail yourself. Glantz is probably the best American historian going. Read his stuff before you knock it you ignorant cunt.
America did not save the world from Hitler.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@Camerameister
"Not 4 engined heavies, which is what you claimed"
??? when did i claim this? Please quote me.
How can you say we didn't save the world from hitler when over 50% of all the planes in the war on BOTH sides put together were American....how could you possibly say this....
""You say American strategy is lying," No, I say your strategy is lying"
And i quote-
"do what the American right does best...Lie and lie"
Just another contradiction of yours. ;)
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets "How can you say we didn't save the world from hitler when over 50% of all the planes in the war on BOTH sides put together were American....how could you possibly say this...." Because WWII was a lot more than just Hitler. Like I said: the US won the Pacific War in a canter. The Soviets did all the heavy lifting in Europe. Now you can say what you like but you can't alter the FACT that 80% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets "You say American strategy is lying," No, actually, I didn't say that, I said it was a tactic of the American right and most Americans are far less arrogant than you. You can read, can't you? Now this is a video about Spitfires and it doesn't need yet another brainwashed, jingoistic, nationalist zealot like you chanting "We won the war" to spoil it for everyone else so kindly fuck off.
I apologise to others who may have found this annoying. For what it's worth, I did too.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@Camerameister
How can you say "i didn't say that" when its right there in black and white.....how....
The fact that 80% of the german casualties were on the eastern front was only because hitler invaded russia. Secondly, it's not just casualties that end the war, its infrastructure, economy, weapons, etc. And the fact that half of the world's weapons were American shows you how big of a role we played. It was surely a hell of a lot bigger role than britain.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets - The US did supply the majority of weapons.They didn't enter the war for three years!. They remained 'neutral' yet produced and supplied weapons the Russia and England under the lend lease program. Mainland America didn't suffer bombing from it's enemies. It's production of weapons proceeds uninterrupted.If England fell,no daylight or night time bombing of German targets. Russia falls, Germans support Japan in the Pacific. It would have been a different world.Fortress England.
aussiepaul44 9 months ago
@coldbedsheets "You say American strategy is lying," No, I say your strategy is lying. Most Americans are far less arrogant than you.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets When the truth hurts, do what the American right does best.
Lie and lie often until someone is dumb enough to believe you.
Come back when you've read David Glantz, US Army (Retd).
Camerameister 1 year ago
@Camerameister
"The US never fielded as many bombers as Britain did and they didn't have the payload/range capability"
Wow...how could you possibly say such nonsense. You clearly know NOTHING about ww2 cause the facts are right there in black and white. We had HALF of the world's total aircraft in ww2. Go and look up all of the bombers in ww2. You will see that every American one, there were built considerably more.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets "Not only that, but we had on average over TWICE as many bombers as britain." Not true. Piekalkiewicz reports the biggest concentration of US 4 engine bombers around D-Day was 750. The only American raid I can find which had more than 1000 was 1083, dropping a total of about 1800 tons...not a very big average bomb load was it? LOL!!
Camerameister 1 year ago
@Camerameister
Longer range? The b-29 superfortress had a range of 3,250 miles. Show me which british bomber had a longer range. It also had a service ceiling higher than any other british bomber. Are you done failing? LOLOL
I still can't BELIEVE you actually thought britain had more bombers than the usa....wow.. that's the fail of the century man. ;)
Just face it. The USA was the strongest country then, and definitely the strongest country now....in the world....ever....
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets Naturally you were going to do EVERYTHING out of context. The B-17 could not carry more than 4,500 to Germany and British bombers regularly carried double that over the same distance. They used 8000lb cookies. Did the US have an equivalent? No. You asked about the B-29 payload, not its range so your point is irrelevant (even though the B-29 was the best bomber of the war).
Camerameister 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Camerameister
"You asked about the B-29 payload, not its range so your point is irrelevant"
And i quote-
"as Britain did and they didn't have the payload/range capability"
It was YOU who brought up range you moron.
And regardless of each plane's payload, the u.s. undoubtedly had a WAY larger number of planes, as i have proven for instance on D-day where we had over 3x more bombers than britain. that's a FACT.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets ". The USA was the strongest country then, and definitely the strongest country now....in the world....ever...." Nobody says it wasn't.
As for now, well the American century lasted about 7 years. Just face it.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@Camerameister
"As for now, well the American century lasted about 7 years"
Let's see...we have by far the most capable and powerful military force on the planet. We have the largest single economy in the world.....so what are you talking about?
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets China owns you.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@Camerameister
lol silly little person you are. China owns us? Because we take loans and treasuries out from them, they own us??? LOL it's our fortune 500 companies that keep their population employed. Its our dollar that they use for reserves. Don't talk about shit you don't know
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets You are talking bollocks about the load carrying capability of the B-17. It carried a maximum load of 8000 lb on SHORT range raids. It carried a mere 4,000 lb of bombs to Berlin. A standard load for a Lancaster to Berlin was 14,000 lb. Max load for a Lanc was 22,000 lb- the Grandslam bomb, which NO Yank bomber could accomodate, none of them had a large enough bomb bay. Mosquito's carried 4,000 lbs to Berlin with a crew of TWO at much higher cruising speeds.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets Your figures for the respective numbers of bombers is laughable. Have you ever heard of the RAF 1000 bomber raids?? We were mounting such raids in 42/43. By 44 RAF BC was at it's strongest, with way more than 624 ac. We manufactured over 7,400 Lancaster and over 6,000 Halifax bombers, not to mention the Stirling, Wellington and Mosquito bombers. No B-29 could carry the 10 tonne Grandslam bomb, the bomb bay simply could not accomodate it, unlike the Lancaster.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
Regardless of what you think, over half of all the aircraft used in ww2(counting up ALL aircraft from both sides) were from America.
I can send you the source if need be.
The same goes for vehicles(not just tanks).
And the lancaster used a bomb bay modification to carry the grand slam. The b-29 could have done the same thing, after all, it did have a higher payload.
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets "The B-29 could have done the same thing....." Wudda, shudda, cudda- but it didn't did it? The USAAF quietly adopted British fire bombing tactics over Japanese cities. The B-29's actually bombed at no more than 20,000, they tried to do so at 30,000 & the accuracy was extremely poor. The US dropped a mix of HE & incendiary bombs- just like the RAF did. At least we were honest about, unlike the US which attempted to adopt the moral high ground-denying it engaged in area bombing.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
Again, the lancaster used MODIFICATIONS. Any plane could use modifications. The truth remains that the b-29 had a larger regular load AND longer range than the lancaster.
And you don't seem to be understanding what i said when i said "half of all the aircraft used in ww2 was from America".
What i mean is that if you counted up ALL the aircraft in ww2 from both sides, you would find that half of them were from America. Do you understand now, simpleton?
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets Please do feel free to provide your evidence to back up your assertion that 50% of aircraft in WW2 were of American manufacture. Try not to personalise matters with childish insults issued from behind the safety of your keyboard 3,000 miles away, it just makes you look weak. The B-29 did not serve in Europe, so the Lancaster was by far the finest bomber in that theatre, it was even considered to drop the A bomb. Mods or not, it was more capable than either the B-17, or B-24.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
I sent you the link that shows 50 percent of the weapons in ww2 were from America.
Please, no silly excuses.
Lol it's funny how you compare the lancaster(7,000 built) to the b-17(12,000 built) and the b-24(18,000 built.
Lol get ready to be owned AGAIN.
Britain has an external debt of $8.9 trillion which is 400% of it's GDP.
Don't get this confused with national debt.
Either way, britiah has a higher national, AND external debt than America.in terms of % of GDP.
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets OWNED? Really? Let's examine the FACTS shall we. Total tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany by the USAAF? 623,418 tonnes- very good. Total tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany by the RAF? A 'mere' 964,644 tonnes. Clearly you have a strange concept of 'owning' somebody. Typical Yank mentality- obsessed with sheer numbers, never mind the FACT RAF bombers carried far higher loads and for much greater ranges. We did MORE, with LESS- that's called, 'EFFICIENCY.'
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
Once again, your numbers about the tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany has a fatal flaw. We were using only half of our power on europe, the other on japan.
And again, your bombers held more with modifications, the same can be said with any bomber. We used sheer numbers, which made it easier if one got shot down.
At the end of the day, the US military is stronger than the uk military on a level that is unparalleled. And we weren't even a real superpower until AFTER the war.
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets It matters not one jot, the FACT is, the RAF carried more of the burden in Europe than did the USAAF, something I suspect many Americans would be surprised by. It is irrelevant that Lancasters underwent modifications to their bomb bays in order to carried the 10 tonne Grandslam. Amazing, they removed the bomb doors, the front turret and the dorsal turret- radical stuff. NOT. The sole fact that counts is that they possessed the capability to lift the load.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
"the RAF carried more of the burden in Europe than did the USAAF"
Once again you are ignoring that even if this were true it was because America was fighting two MAJOR fronts, pacific and european.
You seem to be clinging to talking about what America did and didn't do in WW2. No matter what you say, you will never be able to top the statistic of HALF of all weapons being manufactured in America. Sorry bro :(
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets Perhaps you would like to elucidate on what the British were doing on the SE Asian mainland?? Playing tiddly winks?? So what if half of all the weapons were 'allegedly' manufactured in the US. Who fought with them? Courage, sacrifice & victory rests with those at the sharp end, not people on a production line. It is the finger on the trigger that wins the victory ultimately.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
Talking about what the british were doing in SE mainland can not even closely compare to what America is doing. Sorry, but America defeated japan, there is no argument there. Britain wasn't fighting a MAJOR war in the SE campaign. Nearly all of their military force was focused on Europe. Yes, they had battles there, but don't even try to say that they had equally the same amount of force applied in asia than they did in europe.
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets Clearly you are none too bright to issue such a ridiculous, contradictory statement re the war in the far east. On the one hand, you are presenting an argument that the defeat of the Japanese was an entirely American affair. You then refer to the role of the British on the SE Asian continent- thereby acknowledging that the British & CW forces played an active role in the defeat of Japan, thereby contradicting yourself. WW2 was a TOTAL WAR fought by many nations- NOT just the US.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets Another great myth the US clings to is that it did not engage in area bombing. By denying doing so, the USAAF attempted to take the moral high ground, "We precision bombed, the 'nasty' Brits area bombed." Actually in 43, the USAAF took delivery of H2X- the British H2S radar system, renamed to make the Americans feel better about themselves. On receipt of thie technology, the USAAF sanctioned one major area bombing op per week until the end of the war. They also firebombed Japan.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets The USAAF policy of daylight bombing was completely flawed and an act of folly. The USAAF (wrongly) believed that bombers with 10-12 0.5 Brownings in formation could fend off high speed fighters. They ignored the advice & bitter experience of the RAF, who tried unescorted daylight Ops early in WW2 and get annihilated. The Yanks knew better. That's why in 43, the USAAF suspended Ops over Germany after being crucified. They had to await the arrival of the P-51.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets The daylight bombing campaign resulted in USAAF bombers carrying much smaller bomb loads than did the RAF. Due to the demand for armour & more .50 Brownings, the US bombers had to sacrifice bomb carrying capacity due to the extra weight of armour/guns/crew. Also, the USAAF crowed about 'dropping bombs in a pickle barrel from 20,000ft with the Norden sight. Utter nonsense. Only 20% of US bombs dropped landed with a 1000 ft radius of the designated tgt.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets How interesting. Regardless of what you say, the vast majority of aircraft utlised by the RAF & CW forces were either British built, or British designed. The RAF used a comparatively small number of US aircraft. A small number of B-17's were used by the RAF as EW platforms. Coastal command used a relatively small number of B-24's & Catalina's. The Lanc & Halifax formed the backbone of BC. Crow about materiel as much as you like-men win wars and we did more than our fair share.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
And say what you want, but the U.S. is still the richest and most powerful country on earth by far.
Damn that must hurt....
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets Does it hurt? No, not a bit. Britain was THE world superpower for TWO CENTURIES. During that time, we built up the largest Empire the world has seen. Our influence in, and contributions too the world in terms of invention and creativity is unsurpassed. Next time you get on a train, or a jet airliner, remember WHO invented them. China has overhaulled Japan's economy five years ahead of schedule. You are deluding yourself if you think the US can compete with China in the long run.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
Damn that must suck having to relish about britain's empire in the PAST. Yeah, and that largest empire you speak of, over half of the countries in it were African. What a great achievement!
Also, i can send you a link to an article that lists the top 100 most important inventions of all time, in which America far surpasses britain.
Yes, i suppose china will triple it's economy in 5 years....that sounds VERY realistic.
coldbedsheets 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets Our depth of history provides Britain with a tremendous sense of identity and culture-something America lacks, hence the American obsession with claiming to be an 'Irish' American, or having 'English' origins. Aside from the Romans, no other nation comes remotely close in terms of influence & invention. Go and research the sheer volume of world changing inventions that originated from Britain. We have given the world a tad more than Elvis, hotdogs, coke and Nike trainers.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets Evidently you have forgotten how the USAAF used the Spitfire V & IX, & also the Mosquito for photo-recce duties. You have forgotten how Britain was way ahead of the US in radar technology- go & research the cavitity magnatron which transformed the power and clarity of radar images. Go and research H2S radar, known to the USAAF as H2X (NOT INVENTED HERE SYNDROME). Research WHO planned D-DAY, it was NOT the US- research Gen Morgan. Reseach Op Fortitude- pure British genius.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@coldbedsheets
I'm sorry but I have to step in here at the "most of the bombing campaigns were done by the Americans." That is so insulting I don't know where to begin. Both the RAF and other CommonWealth countries were very much involved in nighttime bombing raids. Don't even ATTEMPT to downplay the role of the Australians, New Zealanders and of course the Cdns. We were all far more involved in the raids before you Americans decided to join.
TheCanadiangirl4 6 months ago
I also realize that conversation was 6 mths ago so I don't expect a reply. Oh well, at least they're in Cdn spitfires.
TheCanadiangirl4 6 months ago
@TheCanadiangirl4 Cdn?
LOL
ffffaffff 6 months ago
@TheCanadiangirl4
If you counted up all the vehicles and aircraft in WW2(from both the allies and axis)over half of them were manufactured in the United States.
That shows how monstrously big of a role the U.S. played in WW2
coldbedsheets 5 months ago
@coldbedsheets Yes indeed, where would the Americans have been without the BRITISH Merlin engine, that transformed the mediocre Allison engined P-51 Mustang into the finest escort fighter of WW2. Where would the US have been without Britain's radar technology eg H2S, or as the USAAF called it, H2X. Where would the US have been without Bletchley Park intelligence-which is estimated to have shortened the war by a 'mere' 18 months? Not so cut and dried is it?
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@TheCanadiangirl4 Asking Americans to appreciate that RAF Bomber Command sustained 55,500 men KIA between 1939-45, compared to their bomber crew losses of 30,000 KIA is a big ask! lol Also, whilst most of them crow about the B-17 being the best WW2 bomber, they conveniently forget the Lancaster carried a vastly heavioer bombload ie B-17 carried a MAX of 8,000lb on short rng missions. They only carried 4000 lb to Berlin. Lancs carried 14,000lb to Berlin as a standard, and could carry 22,000lb.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@TheCanadiangirl4 The Americans also forget about the 1,000 bomber raids mounted by the RAF, which they commenced with in 1943. They also forget about H2S- the British ground terrain radar that improved bombing accuracy considerably. They used something called H2X, guess what it was? Yes-the BRITISH H2S system! They also made huge overblown claims about the accuracy of their bombing sight. In reality, there was little, if any difference in accuracy between the RAF & USAAF.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
@TheCanadiangirl4 The USAAF showed (typical) US arrogance with regard to mouting a daylight bombing campaign. They refused to listen to advice from the battle experienced RAF, which tried the same tactic in 1940 & got slaughtered. They insisted that bombers could defend themselves successfully against fighters. That's why in mid 1943, the US halted raids over Germany for several months because their formations were being massacred! They had to wait for the P-51 (BRITISH MERLIN ENGINE) to arrive.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
Clarkson is like a big child...............LOL
xalkias2 1 year ago
I love this video, typical Clarkson at his best.
0ddba1l 1 year ago
"The Spitfire saved the world from Hitler". What bullshit. Comic book nonsense for naive little boys. What about the Hurricane? What about the Royal Navy? What about radar? Do some reading first Jeremy, you tosspot.
I'd love to go up in a Spit over Kent but I'm not about to shoot my load all over the inside of the cockpit.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@Camerameister You are correct that everyone played a part. One point however is the Spitfire did make a massive difference. The Hurricane was already obsolete in terms of an interceptor by 1940. She did not have the capability to match the Emil or keep up with the later Frieda and Gustav models. Had we not had the Spitfire the BoB would have been a bigger struggle in the air.
So Jeremy is correct in the context of keeping Britain free for later in the war, just his patriotism was a little OTT.
HamishUK 1 year ago
Comment removed
Camerameister 1 year ago
@HamishUK In 1940, 2/3 of Fighter Command was Hurricanes, 1/3 Spits. The kill ratio is almost the same, as is the loss ratio. The RAF could not have won the BoB with just one type. They needed both so the struggle point is actually valid but your point about Friedas and Gustavs is not. They were not in use in 1940! The Hurri could not out climb or out dive a 109E but neither could a Spit. The Spit was faster and more agile but the Hurri had the tightest turning circle of any of them.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@Camerameister I totally agree with you there. I was talking about growth potential beyond 1940 but I should stay on topic. The Spitfire and Emil were fairly evenly matched give or take pepper potting on turn / acceleration etc up to 16'000 feet. Above that altitude the Spit starts pulling ahead of the Emil in terms of speed. At 20k and above the Spitfire has the decided advantage. However had we been just Hurricane equipped the squadron's would have been at a large disadvantage.
HamishUK 1 year ago
@HamishUK Had Britain had just one type they would have been at a disadvantage. I have said this already.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@HamishUK That is simply not true. The Spitfire had far more development potential in it than the Hurricane but the Hurri was far from obsolete in 1940. It was quite capable of taking on a 109E and frequently did. Ask any of the pilots. They'll tell you that they'd rather have flown a Spit but they'd prefer a Hurri for war. The fact is that since 80% of combat is decided without the victim realising it, the matter is a moot point. The Hurricane was also a better gun platform.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@Camerameister That's pure fallacy on your part. The Hurri I agree was often forgotten but it was not prefered over the Spitfire for war. I can ask any pilot as I am a former 'modern' day one myself and the boys in our RBL will praise the Hurri' but over the Spit as a fighter that is simply not true. I agree the element of surpise played a massive part in the BoB but we are discussing semantics. The fact remains the Spit was the quantum leap in fighter design had we not had it then...well...
HamishUK 1 year ago
@HamishUK "The fact remains the Spit was the quantum leap in fighter design" I have already said this but in 1940 the Spitfire still suffered from production bugs and poor accuracy (due to wing flex and gun grouping). The Hurri could take more battle damage than the Spit. Its disadvantages were that it was a bit slower and had a tendency to burn. Very little combat took place above 20K in 1940 And the statistics don't lie. The Hurri's BoB stats are almost the same as the Spit. Look them up.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@HamishUK Britain suffers from the same silly Spitfire snobbery as the Luftwaffe did. I have never said that the Hurri was superior. That's your dream. My position is that the difference was a lot less than what people think. But to claim that the Spitfire won the BoB and kept 'itler out in 1940, as many do, is a myth. You can't get an accurate picture of what happens if you don't make a clinical assessment. I have been reading about the BoB for more than 30 years.
Camerameister 1 year ago
@Camerameister Whilst it is true that the Hurricane achieved more kills than the Spitfire during the BoB, you are missing the salient point. Hurricanes predominantly shot down bombers-not 109's. Why? The Hurri was a better gun platform than the Spit, so it was more effective at concentrating fire on the bombers. The battle could not have been without the Spitfire because it took on the 109's for the most part, which the Hurri was less able to do due to inferior climb rate and lower speed.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 3 months ago
Time to take on the Turd Reich!
RichardSwayne 1 year ago 2
@RichardSwayne LOL!! Now that's funny!
Camerameister 1 year ago
1:37 Group Captain Slow.
RichardSwayne 1 year ago
haha at 1:35 jeremy is lik laughing very hard and james just sais "wieuw"
jassv21 1 year ago
I think hammond is too happy to speak, and jeremey is too happy not to speak, james is somewhere in between.
scoop2004 1 year ago
It's a shame that the hawker hurrican, the work horse of britains air force back then is over looked now. Still, i'll back jeremy up, there is no better feeling than being in a spitfire over britain, makes you realise that it is a country worth fighting for
GGSDavejones 1 year ago
OU-V was operated by 485 Squadron (New Zealand). Makes me feel proud to be a Kiwi!
BRADtheAV8R 1 year ago
clarksons been in an f15 and even done a roll on it. i guess he got really sentimental about the proud history of the spitfire
bcthighs 1 year ago
Got goosebumps at 1:37
What's that music called?
moobref 1 year ago
there in Canadian spitfires over england lol
radar3699 1 year ago
no sound at all from Hammond haha.. only from the annoying Clarkson..
eworque 1 year ago
lucky,lucky,lucky barstards! fumes!
grahamkeithtodd 1 year ago
Haha, Richard looks like a little boy christmas eve xD And Jeremys sounds like one!
What a nice clip, I'm so jealous! :D
TereruTsuki 1 year ago
I believe the maple leaf denotes that it was an RCAF Spitfire.
Hurricanes were much more influential on the Battle of Britain..
redsofanfield 1 year ago
The Spitfire saved the world from Hitler?
I thought it was the American's who did that.
carlosmurphy4u 1 year ago
@carlosmurphy4u Well, in contrast to the Americans, the Brits just don't say it every and every day again... *g* I am a fan of the ME-109, but the Spitfire really is the absolute masterpiece of British enginieering.... god I am jealous... :D
vxl788 1 year ago
@carlosmurphy4u maybe but it took them 2 and a half years to get involved...and that was due to getting spanked at pearl harbour..if that didnt happen i doubt they would have even joined!!!
anyway hitler couldnt have invaded because the raf's big wing destroyed the luftwaffe and therefore made operation sealion(the invasion of Britian) an impossibility
Britian stood defiant for 2 and a half years on her own!!!!
sandynathan 1 year ago
@carlosmurphy4u Let's put it in simple terms- If Britain lost the BoB, Germany would have achieved air superiority & been in a position to attempt to invade. If Germany invaded Britain, guess what? The US would be totally isolated, unprepared & in no position to try & take on Germany & Japan alone. If Germany invaded Britain, there could never have been a D-Day operation. So yes, the Spitfire & Hurricane DID save the world from Adolph.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago 7
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH true but lets be honest. the meshersmict was never going to win against a spitfire
sammyboy761 3 months ago
Those lucky.... illegitimate people!
Darkmind1970 1 year ago
This is proof that money can buy you everything !!! I'd kill to fly on one of those war birds! To bad I am not reach and famous XD!
Airbusftw 1 year ago
is that not a maple leaf on the side of each plane?
gergsllaf 1 year ago
Nice vid quality.
fattydelicious 1 year ago
I bet Hammond was terrified in this one.
jonnham 1 year ago
Absolutely magic!
Darvinho9 1 year ago
hammond seems to be quiet in a very strange way
gregnmac 1 year ago
What soundtrack was that?
Supduplemup 1 year ago
@Supduplemup
Battle of Britain / 1969
lacike737 1 year ago
lol
kTmStrokeOfLightning 2 years ago
affirm luky buggers im cryin here !!
atreewithnolife 2 years ago
2 words....LUCKY BUGGERS!!!!
toeboe106 2 years ago 27
I too would so love to fly a Spitfire! Quite possibly the finest aircraft ever built!!
peterahughes 2 years ago
DAMN I wanna fly a Spitfire!
Bigfatbutterfly02 2 years ago
oh that's teriffic! how did you find that?
halt42and314 2 years ago 4
It's an extra on the Challenges DVD
tibsfont 2 years ago 3
@tibsfont
It is? :D I got that dvd for xmas...figured it was shit Id seen before so ive never watched it. Definitely something to do tonight.
Gazmus 1 year ago
Thank you so much for finding this! Jeremy sounds a bit hyper in this, hammond and may don't even talk in this.
MissHarpoMarx 2 years ago 15