Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Curious Droid" channel.

But to be fair, we have better tech nowadays. Look how many famous WW2 wrecks have been discovered in just the past 5yrs.
163
@TheErockaustin That is very true. Not only don't we know where, multiple nations can't even agree where to start the search for MH370.
20
@vaporainwaves That may be true for some, but definitely not for all. Many of those wrecks leaked out, or had their fuel burned off, before sinking. You won't convince me the Johnston destroyer of Samar fame was found due to leaking fuel tanks. That ship was ripped apart. No way there was any fuel left 75yrs later. Yamato/Musashi? Both ships suffered massive explosions while sinking that disintegrated the ships.
18
@Justanotherconsumer Now go look at the A-4 and consider that it can launch from a Carrier deck with the bombload of a B-17. And then go look at an A-1, similar story.
3
Curtiss was more likely to kill them, becasue so few bombers were shot down. B-29 was so good, its gunners outscored the P-51 in terms of kill ratio. it flew so high most japanese fighters and AAA couldn't reach it. it flew so fast most japanese fighters only got a single try to shoot it down as they wouldn't be able to turn around and catch back up for another pass.
2
@phasm42 Museum in FL by Kennedy Space Center had a B-52 cockpit last I was there. And there are now 2 flying B-29s. Fortunate to have seen them both multiple times. Haven't taken a ride in one yet though. And Enola Gay is in the Smithsonian.
2
Radar Sonar Proximity fuse (AA, torpedoes) US 100/130 avgas B-29 Atomic Bomb Codebreaking (enigma, Japanese codes) Germany had early cruise missiles and ICBMs (V-1/V-2) Any other major technology advantages from WW2 people can think of?
2
to safeguard the crew, you'd need additional INTERNAL armor to separate the crew from teh batteries, instead of just external armor to protect the batteries. And the number and size of batteries needed to move a 70ton armored beast at 45mph is far bigger than a Tesla car. And these batteries are explosive and dangerous.
2
@katey1dog you mean like how big the 8 engine and smaller crew of the B-52 is? you mean like how small the B-21 is?
1
@katey1dog not necessarily. Bigger doesn't mean longer range. P-51 was smaller than teh P-47 and had longer range, because it was more efficient. If you know anything about aircraft design, you'd know size and weight are performance killers. the bigger and heavier it is, the more power is required to do things, and the more fuel that power needs. B-29/B-50 entered service before the B-36, and also outlasted the the B-36 in service by 1-6yrs (1yr for B-29, 6rys for B-50). First Flight B-29: 1942 B-36: 1946 B-47: 1947 B-52: 1952 Entered Service B-29: 1944 B-36: 1948 B-47: 1951 B-52: 1955 Retired B-29: 1960 B-50: 1965 B-36: 1959 B-47: 1969-1977 B-52: in service Crew B-29: 11 B-36: 13 (all that extra manpower for little gain in performance) B-47: 3 (more engines, less crew) B-52: 5 (more engines, less crew) B-1: 4 B-2: 2 B-21: optionally manned Empty Weight B-29: 74.5k lb B-36: 166k lb B-47: 80k lb B-52: 185k lb (not much heavier than the B-36) Max Weight B-29: 135k lb B-36: 410k lb B-47: 221k lb B-52: 488k lb (not much heavier than the B-36) Max Range B-29: 3,250mi B-36: 3,985mi (barely better at all) B-47: 2,013mi B-52: 8,800mi (more than 2X the B-36, despite being only slightly heavier) # of Engines B-29: 4 B-36: 6 B-47: 6 (# of engines doesn't correlate to weight nor size) B-52: 8 (# of engines doesn't correlate to weight nor size) If you compare the physical dimensions, the B-36 is far bigger than the B-52 in length, wingspan, and wing area. This means bigger runways, bigger hangars, etc. Wingspan in ft (wing area in sq ft) B-29: 141 (1736) B-36: 230 (4772) B-52: 185 (4000) The B-1 is equivalent in weight to the B-52, but only has less range than a B-29, due to speed. And has 4 engines. B-2 is a bit lighter than a B-36, but has a 6,900mi range. So while being slightly smaller, with 4 engines, it actually goes 2x as far. The B-21 is smaller still, but said to be able to bomb any target in on the planet without mid-air refueling. A nearly 20,000mi range! Notice how smaller equals greater range? Also notice how crew sizes keeps getting smaller? More crew equals more training, more cost, more weight, more total manpower that had to be ready. For the manpower of 5x B-36s, you could man 13x B-52s. Also, the massive size of the B-36 made maintenance and readiness levels more difficult and costly.
1
I've heard the German V-2 program cost more
1
@kenoliver8913 that was my trouble in determining if it was true or not. everyone uses different metrics of value and so it can be difficult to determine reliable 1-to-1 comparisons.
1
You sure it was the last? What was that helicopter left behind in Pakistan?
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD But it was modified for stealth.
1
right? blows me away how ignorant Greens are of reality. What size and weight of battery is needed to move a 70ton monster at 45mph offroad for a reasonable distance? How much internal armor needs to be added to separate the crew from teh batteries? The Tank would likely weight something like 100tons by the time they were done.
1
but charging is a logistical nightmare
1
the chinese supercomputers were never verified as the worlds most powerful. they refused to allow independent evaluators in. and thus they are not recognized as the most powerful.
1
I agree with the magnitude of the transistor's impact. Imagine not having CAD, CNC, computers, software, internet, modern communications, etc. the implications of those other technologies using transistors not existing, or being nearly as developed as they are. Think of phones, cars, airplanes, and more that are packed with transistors these days. Some of those things would have continued to exist without them, but not in the same way.
1