Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters"
channel.
-
117
-
75
-
71
-
70
-
35
-
33
-
33
-
24
-
19
-
yes. many WW2 aircraft survived the war and soldiered on for years longer (C-47, P-51, F4U, A-1, A-26, etc.).
Then you had this short era of rapid development following WW2 in which aircraft service lives were sometimes shorter than their WW2 ancestors. Lots of designs, lots of failures and some successes.
And then coming out of the late 50s and into the 60s we got a series of aircraft that just won't die. A-4, U-2, C-130, B-52, and many more.
we went from aircraft lasting 6-30yrs, to lasting 1-3yrs, to lasting decades.
17
-
17
-
14
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Aqua Fyre 100 volunteers in a single attack? last I heard only 20 died. and casualties are expected, the volunteers know that. Keep in mind most of those foreign volunteers are combat hardened veterans of other wars, not idealistic children seeking glory. Even if russia managed to kill 200, weeks ago over 16,000 foreign volunteer soldiers had entered Ukraine. Russia has a singular pitiful strike to point to.
There is no misguided bravery here. I fought overseas, and we fell in on new equipment and developed new tactics on-the-spot with no prior training on how to operate or use them, and were continually given new prototype equipment to use as time went on. Cross training is easier than people claim, especially when you're using it all day every day. It's not bravery so much, when you know what you're doing from Experience.
perhaps you should try your Russian propaganda and fear mongering on people wit no actual combat experience, they are more gullible to your words. Also, trying to propagandize people dedicated to fighting communist ideas like that of Russian gov, US democrat party, and Chinese CCP is a waste of your time.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@wbertie2604 the B-17 was not in service for 30years in a meaningful way. It's primary service life was 1936-1945, 9yrs, after which it was RAPIDLY phased out of service in favor of the B-29, B-50, B-36, B-58, B-45, B-47, B-57, etc. Some B-17 were used longer simply due to massive surplus of parts, airframes, and pilots. But they were not used as bombers, but rather target drones, engine testbeds, and special missions. Research, not operational bombers after 1945.
B-58 was 1960-1970, 10yrs
Curious you conveniently left of the F8F with a service life of only 7yrs.
Keep in mind that WW2 ended in 1945, and in the 20 years afterwards we got things like the B-52, U-2, C-130, A-12, F-86, A-4, F-8, F-106, F-4, F8U-3, etc. A lot of airframes came and went in those years due to the rapid pace of development, and the changes in tactics as a result. There was a lot of tactical theory flying around that was found to be wrong in light of actual conflicts, and doctrines and designs had to change to adapt to those realities, as you stated.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@clintfalk That's a lie.
The Japanese did evaluate every foreign plane they got their hands on in the years prior to designing the Zero. But I see no evidence the Japanese ever got to see one of these P-66 airplanes.
The Zero started full development in 1937. The P-66 didn't start development until 1938. The A6M's first flight was in April of 1939 and the P-66 didn't fly until later in September of 1939. Literally impossible for Japan to have seen the aircraft prior to designing the Zero, as the Zero existed first.
I'm literally studying the Zero's history in minute detail right now, even have books with copies of some of the original blueprints for the A6M. I am an engineer, which is driving my interest in the A6M right now from a structural and aerodynamics engineering perspective. I'm studying the Zero from a structural engineering standpoint. But I have also read Jiro's book on the Zero, as well as reading another book on the Zero from the Japanese perspective. And I've read about it for the US and allied perspective. When you read into the actual historical references after WW2, and Jiro's explanation of why he designed it the way he did, and the changes they had to make and why, it's clear the Japanese designed this organically.
Some external influence was surely there, even if Jiro didn't acknowledge it, but most of the designs people compare the Zero to most either never existed when Jiro designed the Zero, or Jiro never saw personally except maybe a picture of at some point. The design of the Zero in many ways is unique to anything the Western nations designed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Thekilleroftanks I Literally said the Zero had armor.
Yes, they had radios, but removed them for various reasons through the war, i was generalizing.
I was thinking specifically of the Val such, and Japanese aircraft overall. an F4U could carry at least 4000lb of ordinance, I'd like to see a Zero try that. Compared to other dive bombers in the war, the Val had one of the lighter bomb loads. The Japanese wanted the range and maneuverability, but such things come at a cost early on when engines are less powerful.
Next time you try correcting someone, make sure you read what they actually wrote, and realize that a simple comment is not a History Thesis and doesn't include ALL possible variables, so Massive amounts of generalizing are necessary.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Greatest "what-if" of all time? Not in the slightest. I find the Mig1.44 highly overrated and I struggle to see anything revolutionary in its design (and I don't care one bit what the paper specs Claim it might have been able to do). The Rockwell X-31, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, and British Aerospace EAP were all far more interesting than the Mig1.44. And the Su-57 thus far has been an underwhelming Gen4+ fighter at best, leading me to believe the Mig1.44 would have been worse than the Su-57.
F-20, F8U-3 Crusader III, F-107, F-108, Miles M.52, Martin Baker MB5, Super Tomcat, and others are far more compelling what-ifs, in my opinion.
3
-
3
-
@csjrogerson2377 He stated it was flawed due to using a radial engine. And then in a separate statement pointed out how this particular radial engine was underpowered for its time. But he later then went on to say it would "never be able to compete with contemporary streamlined, liquid cooled aircraft". He continually implied that radial engines of any kind were obsolete. Many of us know that wasn't the case, but many people watching the video who don't know better Will draw that conclusion. The choice between Maneuverability or Speed, is Not dependent upon whether you chose a radial engine over an inline engine. It's merely a matter of horsepower and aerodynamics overall. A radial engine doesn't make a plane tough (see most Japanese designs), nor does using an inline engine make an airplane weak (P-40, IL-2...). A radial engine doesn't make a plane slow (Bearcat, F4U, Sea Fury...), nor does an inline engine make a plane super fast (P-40, P-39, Bf109...) Never mind the fact that radial engine airplanes outlasted inline water cooled in military service (in the US in particular). Aircraft such as the A-26, A-1D, C-47, F4U... lasted in active combat service as late as the Vietnam War era. Some countries operated them even longer (yes, P-51s and such lasted pretty long too, but less than the radial varieties). Many airplanes started out with weak radials and did just fine against the Zero, such as the F4F, particularly later in the war when they got bigger engines and some airframe improvements. Also, he incorrectly stated the Zero hacked up Allied airplanes in Asia, where as in reality, most of that was done by Ki-27 and Ki-43 type Japanese aircraft. The Japanese Army was responsible for the Asia campaign, and the Navy for the Pacific campaign. The Zero was largely a Navy fighter. Most aircraft the P-40 Flying Tigers faced were Not Zeros at all, for example. People kept mis-identifying other similar shaped planes as Zeros, the same way M4 Sherman tankers in Europe and Africa kept mis-identifying German Panzers as Tigers, when in reality only 3 actual engagements with Tigers can be confirmed.
I don't need a lesson in fighter tactics, as it had nothing to do with my comment. I was addressing the fact he was right in that speed had become more important than pure maneuverability, so being underpowered was a weakness regardless of the engine type. Playing Devil's Advocate and acknowledging that things are far from simply "black and white". However, seeing as you brought it up, you most definitely Can get in a slow speed dogfight with a Zero, assuming you're more maneuverable than him. But, hopefully you're also able to climb and go reasonably fast as well, otherwise the Zero will "boom and zoom" you instead. Whether a plane uses Boom and Zoom, or Turn and Burn is RELATIVE to the target you are facing. If they are slower, but more maneuverable, Boom and Zoom them. If they are faster but less maneuverable, Turn and Burn them. The Zero was not a Turn and Burn fighter against Every possible opponent it faced or might have faced. But in the end, the guy with the faster plane holds the initiative in the fight (if they have any clue what they are doing), as they can essentially run away or re-engage at their leisure. The Bf109 was no slouch in the Turn and Burn department, yet the P-40 did well against some models by out maneuvering them. Yet the same P-40 was a Boom and Zoom fighter against many Japanese types. You adapt to the threat you face, and play to your strengths over their weaknesses, however that matchup plays out.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
relying upon overbuilt durability at the expense of performance rather than relying upon pilot skill in a more maneuverable aircraft is the mark of a lazy pilot.
A good pilot has no intention of getting shot, and does everything in their power to never get hit. Plenty of P-47 pilots died as well, proving toughness wasn't going to save them. Not getting shot is what saves you. Relying on luck as well is not a winning strategy either.
And by the way, the P-47 has multiple vulnerable radiators on the bottom of the airplane as well, just like the P-51, Hurricane, Typhoon, Spitfire, Me109, IL-2, P-40, Ju-87, and many other legendary aircraft.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thekinginyellow1744 notice how many nicknames are a single syllable, as opposed to multiple syllables. It's faster and easier to say, especially over the radio. Often times things are happening fast in the military and you need to say things quickly and with as few syllables as possible. You may only have seconds, and there is no time for lengthy communications or hard to pronounce names/terms.
Also, not sure if you know this or not, but NATO Cold War code names were standardized so that Fighter names start with "F" (Fishbed, Fresco, Fulcrum, Flanker...), and Bombers start with "B" (Bear, Backfire, Blackjack...), Helicopters start with "H" (Hind, Havoc, Hip...), etc. And generally kept to one or 2 syllables. That way even if you're not familiar with the exact designation, by the name you know what sort of aircraft you're dealing with and how you need to think about dealing with it (dogfighting a fighter, or intercepting a bomber, or turkey shooting helicopters...).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shelbyseelbach9568 You responded to the original comment only ONCE. The rest was you getting upset with me for trying to answer your question.
"LOL. If your say so. Certainly not how his comment reads." So if the comment was not satisfactory to you, nor was mine and others' explanations, then why did you comment? What answer were you hoping to get?
"I don't know what he meant to say, I only know what he actually said. Everything else is pure speculation." Exactly, which is why others commented.
" I wasnt asking for answers, he was trying to convey information. He either did so clearly or he didn't. If i was just going to guess the information he wanted to convey, there would be no need for him to speak at all. " You pretty clearly dismissed the comment here, and very rudely disregarded the commenter you were supposedly seeking clarification from. You plainly admit, after asking the question, that you didn't actually want a response either, so why ask if you don't want an answer? That's rather rude in and of itself.
And once again, you resort to continual baseless arguments such as insults, sexism, name calling, avoiding the questions, dismissing arguments, and downright lying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ottovonbismarck2443 Wrong, cheapest bidder is not always true, and in WW2 it wasn't the case. In WW2 is was largely and issue of capacity, same as Germany. The company that designed the aircraft, didn't have capacity to deliver the number needed themselves to fulfill the gov orders. so the gov forced them to allow others to manufacture the difference.
Gov doesn't always own the rights or blueprints to a design, Case example: F-22. Gov has learned from that and has changed the requirements of the NGAD contract accordingly. But, in wartime, the gov can do things it can't do in peacetime (at least for the US, each country has its own quirks).
One factory did produce at less than capacity in WW2 in the US, Allison. They were capable of producing even more engines than they did, but there were vested interests that didn't want the Allison developed or used more than it was.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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 "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
-
1
-
@Thekilleroftanks You keep commenting on my comments, thinking you're correcting me, but you've been wrong about what I said every time. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
One, the Zero was a good design, and yes, it had more potential left in it. But that's not what I said is it?
I said Western designs, of the same period early in the war, were not Inferior. Totally different than what you are insinuating. Also note, that I was not talking about the Zero alone, I was talking about ALL Japanese aircraft of the period. The F4U was Absolutely a superior aircraft to the Zero and most early Japanese aircraft of WW2. The P-38 was also very successful in the Pacific against the Japanese, as were the P-40s and F4F once the pilots learned simply not to turn fight the Japanese. F4Fs were still in widespread service in the Pacific at the end of WW2 and were holding their own. Plenty of early war aces in the F4F and P-40 as well against the Japanese.
Just as the F4F was improved, but not a superior design, with newer engines, so too could the Zero be improved. But the Zero was never going to be the all around performer that other designs proved given the focus on weight and maneuverability. There was simply less room left for improvement. Many other late war Japanese designs were much better than the zero and started getting on-par with Western designs, but too little too late.
The video was claiming that All Japanese early war designs were overall superior to All Western Early war designs, and that simply is not true. The F4U was a 1930s design and went on to be one of the best fighters in all of WW2, up there with the P-47N, P-51, Ta-152, Sea Fury, Mosquito, etc. Many of the best WW2 designs were western fighters, and the F4U was one of the earliest and oldest. The P-38 was no slouch, and the F4F is more evenly matched with the Zero than most people want to accept. The F4F had different strengths and weaknesses than the Zero, but in capable hands, the victor of a fight between a Zero or F4F early in the war would come down to pilot skill, knowledge, and discipline to fight his fight and not get suckered into fighting the opponent's fight.
The P-40 also fought Zeros in the southern Pacific and Alaska, and performed well against many early war Japanese designs other than the Zero. Might I suggest reading up on the Flying Tigers, and Robert Scott's story. The P-40 was not inferior to early Japanese designs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexanderbarkman7832 Yes, RPG AT is a HEAT round like all the others.
RPG is recoilless weapon, like all the others too. Rocket propelled, charge propelled, etc. really doesn't matter. Has no part in how the warhead works.
But it has one MAJOR difference, the nose of the RPG is thin and can be crushed/deformed. If the tip detonator passes between the metal of the bar armor, the nose cone will hit first instead fo the detonator and crush the warhead, or catch it, and prevent it from detonating or forming the jet.
But a round like the US M40 recoilless rifle fires a round with a solid nose, and when it hits bar armor it bends the bar armor instead of being deformed.
"If the round detonates to far from the target it has reduced penetration" this is true. but an RPG-7 that detonates on the side of light armor (APC, MRAP, IFV..) assuming no bar armor, reactive armor, or standoff armor, can easily penetrate one side and clean out the other. Despite passing through all the internal air volume inside those wide vehicles.... The air gap between one side of the vehicle and the other is FAR greater than standoff/bar armor distances. If it can penetrate through many layers of hull armor spaced many feet apart, it can easily still penetrate the outer hull from 1-2ft away.
The bar armor defeats the RPG specifically, by crushing the HEAT warhead before it is able to detonate properly and form the jet. If the warhead is miss-shapen, it cannot for a jet when the explosive charge goes off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexanderbarkman7832 wow, you think wikipedia trumps the real thing? I knew you didn't know anything.
"that's M433, not M344." make up your mind. So which round exactly are you wanting to use as you example, EXACTLY?
"Nlaw and Javelin doesn't even have front cones. They are plastic and the Nlaw in top attack doesn't even strike the target it't ota.."
wow you are stupid. AT4, RPG, Recoilless detonate on impact, side attack. NLAW can too, but NLAW and Javelin are for top attack, firing from a standoff height above, just like an RPG would if it detonated against standoff armor instead of getting crushed by the bar armor. You're only further proving my point here. Have you ever fired any of these weapons before? Javelin and the like work more like a Hornet mine or the US cluster munition.
But keep trying, it's fun watching idiots dig themselves holes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ChucksSEADnDEAD "They don't deteriorate in the desert. They deteriorate by being flown" clearly you don't know what a "hangar queen" is. People in aviation do.
The A-10s are not at end of life. they've been rebuilt and upgraded and are basically new again, many decades of service left in them.
"If you're going to rebuild the entire thing, you're buying a new aircraft." and that's what they did, replaced all the old worn out items, brand new wings, new engines, new avionics. All the fatigued parts were replaced. clock has been reset.
" A total waste of money because everyone knew this would happen." but the money has already been spent, so why scrap them?
"Aircraft are built to be lightweight so they flex and strain with flight hours, depressurization and landing/take off cycles. Your Cessna's never exceed speed is what, 170 knots? Make it pull 7-8 Gs at 280 knots like an A-10 and see what happens." I'm a mechanical engineer. You're wrong. an airplane designed to withstand higher Gs has that factored into the design, to withstand that fatigue and stress accordingly. If the A-10 was designed to handle 7Gs, pulling 7Gs wont degrade its useful life. Pulling less will extend its life though. The Cessna was designed to withstand ~+3G/-1.5G, and so long as you stay within that, you're fine. But that's why they replaced the wings, not just on the a-10, but the f-15s as well. Exceeding limits can result in damage or premature failure later on. But when expecting to take higher loads, you design accordingly. You can even make high stress components with near infinite fatigue life if you us the right materials in critical places and size them correctly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Aqua Fyre Convergent Evolution is the term we use in engineering. Multiple engineers designing for the same set of goals, given a certain state of technologies, materials, understanding of aerodynamics, etc available at the time, tend to result in similar solutions to the same problem. Hundreds, even thousands, of airplanes were designed around the world in the 1930s and 1940s. It is inevitable that some would share similar solutions. But the Zero was revolutionary when it was designed and first made operational, and no one can prove, with actual evidence, that the design was in any way copied from any other specific aircraft other than superficially.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sergeychmelev5270 SBD, A-36A, Ju-87, Typhoon/Tempest, P-47, P-39, P-40, Hurricane, F4U, Mosquito, FW190, P-38, A-1, etc.
IL-2 top speed was 250mph, service ceiling was 16k ft, rate of climb was 1000fpm, lacked maneuverability, was vulnerable from below (Hartmann's favorite way of shooting them down).
Many post-WW2 civilian airplanes perform better than this, and on far less HP too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sebclot9478 "kid"?
Where do you get the idea you're in a position to lecture anyone?
Insults and "appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. By using such fallacies instead of arguing on merits of your ideas and the documented facts, you are admitting defeat. Such is the rules of scientific debate.
I could cite my laundry list of qualifications and credentials, but that doesn't make me right either. Only the facts and logic of my argument can win. But in addition to my extensive experiences, achievements, knowledge, and skills in these topics, i have an exhaustive library of source material on a short list of aircraft, chief among them is the P-51. Name a book specifically about the Mustang and i probably own a copy. And i have been debating this aircraft specifically with many top experts. Pilots who've flown the aircraft, first-hand accounts. Engineering data. Mechanics who've worked professionally on both the Allison and Merlin engines. Talked with authors of some of the most prominent books on the topic, and much more. I've been researching and debating WW2 fighter aircraft for many years now in excruciating detail.
But again, my credentials and past research alone doesn't make me right. My arguments being logically consistent and backed up by facts and evidence is what makes my arguments scientifically valid.
1
-
@bobjoned3398
Yes, the A-36 was a stop gap fighter, but it 100% was intended for combat and they were all used in combat till the last plane could no longer fly.
The US invented dive bombing, not the Germans, but it worked, as the SBD showed. The A-36 became the best dive bomber of WW2,a nd the only one allowed to do danger close dive bombing in support of troops in contact. The Second best dive bomber of WW2 was the F4U Corsair.
The dive brakes were NEVER wired shut, this is a lie that has been refuted by Multiple experienced A-36 combat veterans. they specifically address this lie, and they flatly refute it with prejudice. Read any first hand accounts of A-36 pilots. Even Robert S. Johnson flew the A-36 at one point and had high praise for it. Many A-36 pilots Preferred the A-36 to the P-47 for ground attack, and resisted giving up their A-36 till they literally ran out of airplanes.
Even the Germans that test flew the P-47 said it was a sluggish dog below 20k ft, and that they could never get one to go over 310mph at lower altitudes. Read the first hand accounts of the Germans who test flew captured allied aircraft. They didn't much care for the P-47, but they did agree it performed much better above 20k ft and dove well. But a dog at low altitude. Even a P-40 was faster and more maneuverable than a P-47 below 15k ft, and was equally as tough an airframe as the P-47.
Ever notice how no P-47s raced at Reno after the war?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@McRocket Laser is a laser, it doesn't know which branch of service it's employed in.
They have tested airborne lasers. Not put into production, but working airborne lasers. At the current rate of technological progress and size reduction, if you project that forward, they will become production units very soon. Given that the Army is able to install production units on a Stryker, and others have been tested on Humvees and such, it is getting into the range of being able to be mounted on a fighter already. And those lasers have been tested against rockets, drones, artillery, and so the anti-SAM, and anti-Air-to-air role is perfect for these lasers as well. The tech has been developed, and continues to shrink. It has been repeatedly tested, and is now being pushed into production in other roles. It's a mere matter of time now. Lots of development in laser tech right now. New tech always progresses slowly at first. But we're past that phase of evolution with lasers now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LV_CRAZY I've been learning more about the bombing campaign against Japan lately, as well as more about the Malaysia and New Guinea campaigns in WW2. I know the P-47s were used in the Pacific, more than many probably realize and they are rarely mentioned. I did realize the P-47N was a big improvement, but thought it was only made in small numbers, being a latecomer (like the A-1 skyraider, Bearcat, Sea Fury and others). I have not heard of the P-47N replacing P-51s, but I will look into the P-47s in the Pacific more, as I've been meaning to anyways.
I've never been a huge fan of the P-47 myself, though I know well the stories and respect it. But the P-47N really changed my mind about the P-47. It's unfortunate it came along so late. It feels like the P-47N was what the P-47 wanted to be all along, trapped inside it's own skin for too long, so to speak.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisknight6884 wow, conspiracy theorist alert!
and when was the flyer added to teh smithsonian? and why did this other guy never make any claims npor demonstrate a functional airplane prior to that time?
"Ader was not the only contender, there are others, some of which are plausible."
no, none of the claims are plausible. All have been disproven definitively. Langley was closest, but it took modern engineers to fix all his issues.
"The fact that he flew 8 years after the first time it was done and that 80 people had flown the Atlantic before him, was ignored."
list the first 3 people then....
"The Brazilians maintain that Albert Santos-Dumont was the first, the French that it was Ader etc. "
they are both wrong, and have been proven wrong.
"Ader's claim is widely supported by aviation historians "
no it's not. this is nothing but your unqualified and biased opinions. no facts, no names, no dates, no airplanes, no proof. just false claims. Historians, by definition, weren't there. they study things that happened, which they weren't present to witness. Someone who was not there cannot testify to that act having been done. And name one historian who claims they can substantiate Ader's claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1