So what specifically are you refuting , Robin ?
Keep your emotions out of the answer , please .
Hmmm, what am I refuting?
First of all I have a deep scepticism against a lot of things being said/shown on Youtube. Some producers have their own agenda, some just want to make a buck, which is perfectly OK but sometimes it leads to following the old rule for newspaper producers: Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Agendas come in many different forms, religious, political, economical, conspiracy theories et.c.
The internet has made it possible for various strange people to make their voice heard by a worldwide audience.
In short: I tend to be sceptical.
I have a hard time believing that the Ju 87G, the Il 2 and various other airplanes used for the ground attack role were total wastes of time and effort. One airforce may be misled but so many at the same time? Did they copy each others mistakes?
When is a weapon system a failure? When it misses in how many percent of the cases? Is it scary enough if a fighter-bomber can take out a tank in 10% of the attacks?
How many of the projectiles fired by fighter planes against other aircraft, regardless of type, did actually hit and kill something? What is the percentage of fired naval artillery shells actually hitting their target?
In modern times the hit ratios are climbing up but we still have not reached 100%.
How many of the bullets fired by the MG 42, and others, actually hit something else than the countryside?
Trying to prove something by showing that the claimed kills were actually far higher than the actual kills doesn't cut it with me.
If the appearance of a fighter bomber in the sky made everyone run for cover then that plane is efficient in some sense. If the enemy is hiding in the bushes then they are not moving toward the front.
This is in the same general area as but not quite the same thing as:
One possible translation:
"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting"
If the beancounter fights a war he counts the number of enemy units destroyed, another way is to count the number of enemy units prevented from fighting at all.
If fighter bombers in the air can halt enemy movement then it is a clear win in my books. The tanks can rust to death for all I care as long as they do not roll onto the battlefield.
With some clever use of statistics it could be shown that most weapons systems were inefficient. By restricting the evaluation criteria it could be shown that many useless systems are efficient. U-boats were a deadly threat to shipping but most freighters got through, the number and size of sunk ships were sometimes exaggerated by the u-boat captains. Was the u-boat efficient or not?
As long as the video producers get a lot of clicks/views ....
The Bismarck was not sunk be the Royal Navy, they simply forced Lindemann and Lütjens to sink her themselves ....