Nuh-uh! The Kriegsmarine was so much cooler!

Ah, yes. Jonathan has found a glittering gem of an example, one with which he might attempt to destroy my argument in one fell swoop of his word-processing application. What is this horror I speak of - namely, the sinking of the Bismarck. Yet, what seems like a cut and dried case is nothing but a statistical discrepancy of the utmost degree. To begin, I say that the fabled British torpedo bombers that Jonathan so greatly adores simply got lucky that time. You disagree. Well, why not examine the wikipedia entry on torpedo bombers:

One crucial limitation of a torpedo bomber was that it had to fly a long, straight course at a constant ground level altitude of 30 metres (100 ft) toward the target ship before launching its torpedo. The torpedoes were very sophisticated weapons and were prone to damage when landing on water, especially on a wave; they were normally aimed at the bottom of a wave but, needless to say, this was rather difficult.

However, during a torpedo run, the attacking aircraft were easy targets for defending fighters from a combat air patrol. Furthermore, torpedo planes were also highly vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, particularly the heavy anti-aircraft guns (such as the 5 inch DP) which fired into the water, creating water spouts to slap the torpedo planes.

As if that were not enough - it weren't - I have also discovered that the British relied primarily on the navy to sink the Bismarck:

The first phase consisted of air strikes by torpedo-bombers from the British aircraft carrier Ark Royal which disabled Bismarck by jamming her rudders. The second phase was the shadowing and harassment of Bismarck during the night by British destroyers, with no serious damage to any ship. The third phase was an attack by the British battleships King George V and Rodney, supported by cruisers, on the morning of the 27th.

In other words, the luftwaffe ain't got nothing on the kriegsmarine. I rest my case.