Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "The Siemens-Schuckert D.IV; Best Fighter of the First World War?" video.

I often dis-include the D.VIII, Siemens-Schuckert D.IV, Sopwith Snipe, and others from "best fighter of WW1", but it's hard not to acknowledge them and add qualifiers. They were essentially like the super props of WW2, too late to really do anything, but surely would have been great had they had more time. Whenever I talk about the SE5a, D.VII, SPAD XIII, I am always thinking of these planes in the back of my mind as well.
68
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters like you, I do consider the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV to be THE best fighter of WW1, and I say as much when it comes up. I think your title in this case was just fine. But it's curious to me that the D.VII saw extensive testing and use Post-WW1 and the SE5a continued in use as a primary fighter after the war, but surely the Allies also had a chance to test the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV? I just never see any pictures, or reports on it from teh Allies after the war.
14
@hitime2405 I always consider the Fokker D.VII, SE5a, and SPAD XIII to be the top three WW1 fighter planes overall. Not in any particular order. Keep in mind that until the 1930s, air forces tended to prioritize maneuverability over speed. But some already understood the advantages of speed, even in WW1. And 138mph is not that much faster than 117mph. It comes down to pilot skill and knowing how to use the airplane properly.
4
@hitime2405 Doesn't guarantee victory though. But the SPAD is a good pick in WW1. And keep in mind, there are more metrics that make a good fighter than just pure speed Mig25 is fast, but sucks. Mig21 was fast, but struggled to dogfight the F-4, F-5, and such. The F-104 was fast, but sucked in dogfights. Whereas the F-16 is fast and curb stomps in dogfights. The F-18 and F-35 aren't nearly as fast, but they destroy in dogfights too. There are other metrics of performance, even for WW1 fighters. Things like climb rate, ceiling dive speed (will it hold together), maneuverability, etc. Even at 138mph, you're not flying past an airplane going 120mph. and they might lose less energy in a turn than you as well, negating that speed advantage in a fight. And then you have tactics in a dogfight that favor the slower more maneuverable craft (as Werner Voss famously made clear).
3
It makes sense though. Evolutions in design never ends, and accelerates during wartime. If WW1 had gone on longer, perhaps we'd be talking about how the Hawker Fury came just too late to make a difference in WW1, for example. And of course the best piston fighters would emerge immediately preceding the transition to jet fighters. Because as knowledge improves and the improvements in propeller aircraft become too small (practical technology starts to converge), people start looking for the next boost in technology and performance to gain an edge.
3
@hitime2405 the Few planes were faster than the Sopwith triplane. and those that were were only 10-20mph faster. As I said it was BALANCED. it WAS fast as far as most WW1 planes were concerned. Fast enough to be competitive. If you were faster than a Fokker DVII, he was probably more maneuverable. and if you were more maneuverable, he was faster. Always nice to see unhinged emotional yelling rather than facts. Clearly yelling like a lunatic gives your comments credibility.....not. There is this great book you really ought to familiarize yourself with as a starting point. "Quest for Performance". It's free online or you can find print copies. It looks at WW1 aircraft from an engineering and performance perspective, and the Fokker DVII consistently rates among the top 3 fighters of WW1 in many metrics of performance, right there with teh SPAD XIII, often out performing others such as in climb performance. The DVII could outclimb almost everything except the Fokker Dr.1. And if you know anything about fighter engineering, you'll know that climb performance is one of the greatest measures of a good fighter plane (e.g. F8F, and others). Speed is another metric, and while the DVII wasn't the fastest, it wasn't much slower either. Maybe study more aerospace engineering before loosing your marbles in public.
3
@hitime2405 exactly what I thought, you flew a plane, 40yrs ago. you have next to no experience. I am a CFII in helicopters and airplanes, and an Aerospace Engineer currently working on stuff for NASA. 10-20mph difference in WW1 aircraft is next to nothing. When in a dogfight, once you start maneuvering, energy retention, climb and turning performance is more important. A good climbing plane is a good turning plane. The SPAD XIII, Fokker DVII, Dr.1, and others were superior to the Sopwith Camel in climb and almost every other metric. The Camel offsets its high kill count with high losses as well. the F-15 is the king of the skies, not because it has over 100 victories, but also because it has never been defeated. Its kill/loss ratio is what matters. The F6F has a high kill tally, but lots of losses too, dragging it's kill ratio down.
2
@hitime2405 only if you ignore the pilots it killed. More pilots died flying the Camel than kills scored with it. And it didn't continue in service, and was already being replaced before teh war ended with better aircraft. I will never agree the Camel was teh best fighter. And when you look at more factors that an aerospace engineer does regarding capability and performance, to compare aircraft, the Camel definitely was not superior. "the most successful combination of individual pilot and individual aircraft was Billy Barker and Sopwith Camel B6313, also making it the most successful individual fighter aircraft in RAF history with 46 kills, also the Camel was the first aircraft launched on a combat mission from an aircraft carrier, the Camel was THE most maneuverable fighter in the RFC/RAF and was not withdrawn from the RAF until January 1920." none of those singular factors makes in the best. being the first to do something matters not, especially if others could have done it too, and better. Cherry picking a single example of a pilot doesn't make a trend. and maneuverability alone doesn't make a fighter (as the Zero why the P-40 has a positive kill ratio against it).
2
@hitime2405 if kills in combat is your metric for "top fighter", without considering factors such as overwhelming numbers, then you have no understanding of air combat. According to you, the P-39 is the top allied fighter of WW2 then. You know why the F6F scored so well in WW2? it was shooting down unskilled pilots in flaming coffins who couldn't dogfight, and stayed in formation even as other around them were being slaughtered. "Turkey shoots" require no skill. any pilot in any plane could have done what the F6F did when the bulk of its kills were tallied. But the F6F is way down the list of top fighters of WW2.
2
@hitime2405 Are you a pilot? my guess is a hard No.
2
@hitime2405 my original comment includes my top three, always has. if you're getting notifications on this thread, you should be familiar with teh original comment and you clearly posted on it before.
2
@hitime2405 "Like you everyone waxes lyrical about the Fokker DVII" FALSE you literally ignored the fact my top 3 fighters of WW1 in no particular order are SE5a, SPAD XIII, and Fokker DVII. stop leveling false accusations and stick to arguing Facts. The Fokker DVII IS a great airplane, one of the best. Why? because it was BALANCED. Easy to fly, fast, good performance and agility. a perfect balance of performance.
2
@hitime2405 "You said you would never accept the Camel was the best fighter, it shot down more enemy aircraft than any other, that in itself makes it the best fighter of WW1, just because you don’t believe historical fact doesn’t make your argument right." Nothing I said was factually incorrect. you're fixated on one factor that alone isn't enough. you have to take teh big picture into account. you're dogged refusal to face reality about what counts in warfare, proves you are relying solely on emotional bias and are not going to be swayed by any amount of facts. In WW2, teh US was going to win WW2, 100% guaranteed, even if it only had the F4F, P-39, and P-40 at it's disposal for the rest of the war. Th US didn't need the F4U, F6F, P-47, P-51, P-38, etc. to win. It may have lost more men before the war was over, but it still would have won. Why is this? I doubt you know, as if you knew the answer, you'd understand why the Camel objectively sucked. th fact you keep coming back here to comment 4-5x over a day, before I ever get a chance to read a single new comment from you, also tells me this issue is really messing with your head. That you are having an emotional breakdown over this, can't stop thinking about it. can't stop returning to reply again. problem is you have nothing but a single flawed argument that doesn't hold up and you keep repeating it like a broken record.
2
@hitime2405 "you are the one with the problem, I am not dissing any Allied aircraft for personal reasons, you are !!!!" irrational emotional responses with no substance. I have not dismissed the Camel for any reason other than facts-based reasons. "You have a problem with the Camel, I’m pointing out that you are wrong, that’s the problem here." I have no problem with the Camel, I'm just judging it objectively based upon the facts. You have insisted I am worn, but you have never once proven it with objective facts. To be objective, you must make an argument that anyone could agree with and see the same thing. Notice how your latest comments include no facts whatsoever. What's truly ironic is your original argument, and I quote you, "It’s unbelievable to me how people say that this Siemens-Schuckert DIV or the Fokker Dr.1 triplane / Fokker DVII were the best fighter planes in WW1, yet let us look at their published top speeds, 120mph, 110mph and 117mph respectively, now let’s look at the SE5a and Spad XIII, 138 mph !!!!! even the 1916 design that actually went to the front in 1916 the Sopwith Triplane had a top speed of 117 mph". you bashed airplanes for being slow, yet the Camel has a top speed of only 113mph. so by your own argument the Camel cannot be the best, before even considering how dangerous it was to its pilots. Even before considering it was already being phased out of service by better and safer airplanes before the war even ended.
2
@hitime2405 "and why would the US have won the war you ask, simple, the atomic bomb!" Wrong. The US would have won the war even without the atomic bomb. Many people are confident the Japanese would have surrendered by the end of Dec 1945 even without the nukes. The US had already won even before Dec 1941, and even the Japanese knew that. It was impossible for Japan to win without literally everything going right for them in every battle all the time. and that simply was never going to happen. Germany stood no chance either. want to try another guess as to why? And a hint....the answer also relates back to why the Camel sucked as a fighter plane.
1
@hitime2405 "just trying to convey actual history to you but you are not having it." haha!! nice try, but that's a false argument. try brining facts next time. hilarious how bent out of shape you get over this. you'll literally argue this to your grave to avoid being wrong. do you dream about me too?
1
@hitime2405 "I have given you the only fact applicable for the criteria of the best fighter, it shot down the most number of enemy aircraft" that is NOT the criteria for teh best fighter, and it most definitely is not the SOLE criteria. this is your unqualified and baseless opinion, nothing more. "wonder why I’m having to keep on repeating it," because you're an idiot. Repeating the same things over and over, expecting a different outcome. You're mad you can't force your opinions on others. Something in your brain snapped over this topic and you can't let it go. Lots of possible reasons. "but the point is none of those achieved shooting down the most enemy aircraft, can’t you get that?" I get that it among allied fighters, it achieved teh most kills, but that means it was not the top killer of airplanes in WW1 either, otherwise it would not need the qualifier. Many say the Dr.1 scored teh most kills overall, with only 320 aircraft built. Also, getting 1200 total kills when 5400 Camels were produced is not that great either. That means on average 1:5 Camels scored a kill. Add that the 5200 SE5a built. Where as if the Dr.1 scored around 1200 kills, that means the average Dr.1 scored about 3-4 kills per airplane on average, easily making it the best fighter of WW1 based on your criteria. Contrast that to 320 Dr.1, and 3,300 D.VII built. And 4,900 Albatross fighters built. And consider the Camel fought on a Front manned by Australians, Canadians, British, French, Americans, etc. all flying combat sorties of their own. Just as the US scored large kills with overwhelming numbers in WW2. We haven't even considered the Nieuports, SPADs, and other airplanes built that faced off against the Germans. When you look at the big picture, the Camel didn't score that well overall, and the SE5a scored nearly the same number of total aerial victories. The best airplane is the one judged to be the objective best overall airplane when all else is equal (1vs1 fight, same pilot in both airplanes of infinite skill, etc.). Which airplane comes out on top more often than not against all comers in an equal fight? that is teh best fighter of WW1. Would you also argue the F-22 is not superior to the F-15, F-16, and F-14, given their high kill totals, seeing as the F-22 has no 1v1 kills? Surely you must believe the F-22 to be inferior, given the other aircraft have hundreds of victories.
1
@hitime2405 " okay so now you know I was correct in pointing out the Camel was the best fighter of WW1" You're delusional. I never said it was. I dare you to quote me in context what made you claim this. "even though today there are a number of faithful replicas flying with modern built rotary engines, with pilots reporting good flying experience" I was just talking to a number of people building replica WW1 airplanes less than a month ago (not the guys in New Zealand though), and most are opting NOT to put rotary engines in due to safety. The airplanes with rotary engines are dangerous and prone to accidents. The rare few replicas in the US with rotaries are well known and talked about. Most opt to use a more reliable and safer radial engine. Makes the airplanes much safer. Rotary Camels are dangerous to any pilot, it only takes once. We are seeing a rash of fatal airplane accidents lately, most by high time professional pilots, and even the low time pilots often had more flying experience than WW1 pilots. And they are crashing plans easier to fly than a Camel. I don't claim the Camel was the worst of WW1, simply not the BEST. It's called "nuance". the world is not black and white. "Now we have that cleared up I’m intrigued by your point of how the US would have won the war by themselves, " Haha! We have not cleared up anything. You blatantly misrepresented me, and made false statements in this response. here is your false claim, "okay so now you know I was correct in pointing out the Camel was the best fighter of WW1". When you've proven ready to listen to facts, and have logical and civil discussions, then maybe we can talk more. but you still have not proven nor backed up your claim the Camel was best, in fact I proved the Dr.1 by your own criteria was best. By your logic you must think the F-22 is an inferior modern fighter.
1
@hitime2405 "and the job description for a fighter aircraft is shooting down enemy aircraft, the Camel did it more than any other fighter, making it the best fighter, " case of not seeing the forest for the trees. You clearly don't understand warfare. In war, you need to kill more of the enemy than you lose. The Camel killed more friendlies that it shot down. 100 German airplanes shot down =/= 100 dead German pilots. But 100 dead Camel pilots does equal 100 dead camel pilots. More Camel pilots died, than German aircraft shot down. Now consider that not all those German pilots died, and it gets even worse. If the UK relied upon Camels in the manner they performed for the entire war, Germany would have won through attrition. As for every 100 German aircraft shot down, lets say 80 Germans would die, while 120 UK Camel pilots would die. That is a TERRIBLE airplane. Consider how many top aces flew the SE5a by comparison. Consider how many pilots died merely flying the SE5a (not nearly as many). Consider that the SE5a wasn't replaced in service as the Camel was, and even lasted in service post-WW1. A sniper that only kills one enemy soldier before getting killed himself, is worthless as a sniper. The USA and USN also used the SE5a. Th SE5a was objectively superior, and preferred by top aces.
1
@hitime2405 "I’m saying that people always say “this or that aircraft was the best because “ the fact is they didn’t achieve it, they may well have been capable of it but they didn’t do it in reality." exactly, and the Camel didn't achieve it, objectively. And that's why I don't rank my top 3 picks of Fokker D.VII, SPAD XIII, and SE5a. I treat them all as equivalent equals.
1
@hitime2405 well, the P-40 vs Zero situation is completely relevant, as it's basically a much more magnified and dramatic demonstration of speed and maneuverability. so you should probably read into it some more as a case example for better understanding WW1. As you pointed out, you clearly don't understand the situation with the P-40 and the Zero, and why it applies to WW1.
1
@hitime2405 wrong about what exactly?
1
@hitime2405 "and you are obviously a woulda coulda shoulda merchant, the Camel DID all that, the others didn’t because they didn’t!!!!" nope, I'm saying it literally doesn't matter. And, " the others didn’t because they didn’t", is not a valid argument, nor a rebuttal of anything I said.
1
@hitime2405 The camel was capable in terms of maneuver, but it was not an all-around good fighter, and was already being replaced by the Snipe by war's end. But the SE5a had a stellar record, and served for years after the war in multiple nations (not terribly long of course, given pace of change, but longer than most WW1 aircraft). Many pilots, especially the Germans, prioritized maneuverability over speed. Back then, the formal techniques of dogfighting still hadn't been established, and many aircraft were so closely matched that maneuver was the key. But as aircraft evolved and speeds increased, pilots started to figure out Boom and Zoom tactics, and more nuance to fighting styles. But most of this wasn't formalized by military pilots until the 1920s and 1930s. And maneuver continued to be prioritized over speed in fighter design until the Hawker Hart came along, and then it suddenly became all about speed (until the modern missile age post-Desert Storm). And look at the P-39 vs Zero. The P-39 was noticeably faster, but the Zero was far more maneuverable. Either could win in a dogfight if they fought their fight (but the P-39 did achieve the favorable kill ratio over the Zero).
1
@hitime2405 "you couldn’t even comprehend the title of the video properly" oh, but I can. You clearly can't read. If you could read, and read the first few of my comments in this thread, you would actually understand. But reading is hard these days, and people admitting they are wrong is another. And yes, I have set world records and world firsts in outer space working for NASA. It's actually pretty cool and cutting edge work i get to do. But it requires science, facts, and objectivity to succeed. Opinions like yours won't get you to Luna or Mars, hard data and science will. This also how I succeeded in combat when others failed. I observed the enemy's tactics, researched and studied anything related to what we were doing, and formulated tactics which we tried. and each mission we reviewed what happened, what worked, what didn't, and adjusted our tactics accordingly. Until finally were were so successful the enemy stopped fighting us and went after other units. We even captured intel off a dead insurgent's journal where he was venting about how they couldn't defeat us as we were always steps ahead of them. and how they couldn't figure out our tactics. When you actually use objective reality, facts, and science, you can achieve great things. But doing what you do, you will never succeed against someone like me. You will lose 100% of the time. The only way to beat me, is with facts, science, math, etc.
1
@hitime2405 yes, the German prioritizing defense air, vs the British and others prioritizing Offensive affected things for sure. and the race for higher, faster, farther, more payload never ends. They had the best overall fighter, the SE5a, which served well after teh war. But I wouldn't say best "fighters", plural. Camel sucked. But the F2B was awesome. But the SPAD and Fokker DVII and DVIII were good too.
1
@bigblue6917 I'm not sure you're understanding what I said.
1
1:10 the Fokker D.VIII/E.V?
1