Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1. Bar armor was designed to combat RPG-7 style weapons, and I have witnessed it work first hand in Iraq and Afghanistan. It reduces the RPG to a frag grenade instead of a shaped charge, and saved multiple men in my unit. It did Not work against other types of munitions, and even Vietnam era recoilless rifle rounds will defeat it handily. I called it Bar Armor, Slat Armor, or Birdcage Armor.
    117
  2. You're like Mark Felton, for airplanes. I love it.
    75
  3. 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.
    71
  4. NASA still flies the Canberra, last I checked
    70
  5. This video is a perfect example of why I watch your channel. You cover the less flashy stuff most don't care about if they know of it at all, but that is still worth discussing.
    35
  6. I got to see that Super Corsair fly at Oshkosh before it's tragic accident. Absolutely stunning performance. Came down the runway fast and went straight vertical. Never seen a WW2 plane climb like that before.
    33
  7. The B534 has really nice lines for a biplane.
    33
  8. It's not "digital design" that makes the difference, as all companies are using digital design tools. It's about the leadership and mindset of the company and engineers designing it that keeps costs down, and development cycles short.
    24
  9. The longer they sit on the ground, the less likely they'll ever fly again.
    19
  10. 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
  11. the most effective anti-terror steps is to not let them in your country in the first place.
    17
  12.  @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
  13. coincidentally, the F4U Corsair turned out to be an excellent dive bomber.
    12
  14. I don't see how the harness keeps a person slipping a foot off the platform accidentally. this thing was crazy.
    11
  15. the F-35 is easier to fly due to automation. the F-35 is actually comparably priced to 4th gen fighters available like the Typhoon, Rafale, and others. The F-35 has superior long-term staying power as more nations become stealth equipped. Your concerns over logistics, cross training, and such are justified to be sure. But at some point you have to pivot, and so this cross training will always happen at some point regardless, every time a new aircraft is introduced.
    11
  16.  @johnd2058  We used extra bar armor for stowage in combat. we mounted it on Do-Kings to carry fuel, ammo, stretchers, water, and even to mount machine guns to. We made a trailer out of nothing but a broken John Deere Gator and Bar Armor parts. We mounted lights and cameras to it. I devised sun shades to improve the air conditioning units which we mounted to the bar armor. The armor we used was like LEGOs, and we did all sorts of stuff with it.
    11
  17. DS: already a qualified Crayon Eater You: weren't yet a qualified Crayon Eater, and you needed some edumacating....
    11
  18. It's sad I've never heard of this aircraft before. But that's what makes your videos so great.
    10
  19. that airplane actually has some good looking lines from certain angles.
    10
  20. The Taliban used them effectively against us.
    9
  21.  @wbertie2604  so did the B-17, B-36, B-29, F-86, F-100, F8F, F7F, etc. Service life means nothing.
    9
  22.  @stevetournay6103  coincidentally, both the F-4 and F-15 were designed by McDonnell Douglas.
    9
  23. the launcher is probably a modular box, that can be attached to a truck, trailer, etc.
    9
  24.  @lordbossharrow  nothing like an entire Company of tanks getting annihilated by a bread van.....
    9
  25. it wasn't 2000lb heavier due to steel, it had a greater wingspan, wing area, length, payload, etc. and when you put small engines on that, it makes it go slower and not work as well as a lighter smaller plan using the same engines.
    8
  26. the description of the P-66, to me, reminds me of the Japanese Zero in many ways (which I have been researching a lot lately). Comparable speed, described as maneuverable (likely still less so than the Zero though). The word fragile was used, which to me implies it is of lighter construction than typical US fighters. And the tail..... look at that tail. Looks part Zero, part Corsair. Unlike the Zero, who's armament was factored into the design from day one, the later addition of armament was clearly detrimental to the P-66.
    8
  27. exactly, "contract" out the maintenance, even use civilian companies with no specific gov ties if needed.
    8
  28. the Allison engine is very good down low, people never acknowledge that. especially given that so few aircraft were designed for high altitude long range escort, and very few aircraft ever fit the bill in all of WW2 to do long range high altitude escort.
    8
  29.  @timonsolus  Ukraine was getting so many volunteers, foreign and civil, that they were turning people away or giving them other noncombat support roles.
    8
  30. the P-47 prototype also blew up its motor getting that fast, and never repeated anything remotely close to that speed ever again.
    8
  31.  @chefchaudard3580  it's not the software doing the design work, it's the engineers. CAD is a tool, like a hammer. The manufacturer of the hammer didn't build the house, the carpenter did. And many other software companies are used as well, not just Dassault. Many places used alternative CFD and FEA software for example.
    7
  32. Corsair Corsair II Corsair Crusader Crusader II Crusader III Corsair II
    6
  33.  @chefchaudard3580  Yes, but they talked about digital design tools as though nobody has been using them to design airplanes until just now, and how that somehow differentiated some new designs in the market. The company I work for designed the computers the Boeing 777 was designed on, and it wasn't Dassault. The aviation industry has been using CAD for decades.
    6
  34. not as uncommon as you might think for companies not wanting to sell a product under certain circumstances. Low volume with added costs for specialization? Extra regulatory requirements the company isn't prepared to deal with? Not having the expertise to develop their product for an application? trying to focus efforts on a more profitable market opportunity? etc.
    6
  35. Never heard of the rubber deck idea, glad you brought this to my attention.
    6
  36.  @johnd2058  the sun shades really worked. without large windows, in the desert heat, we'd see temps of up to 160F inside the vehicles in the hottest days of summer. The shades dropped the internal temps 10-20F, helping the AC units not work as hard, and made a huge difference. Lots of guys started installing them after I did that. Just thin plywood shaped to fit and zip-tied between the roof and the outer cage armor over the windows to prevent direct sunlight from touching the window glass.
    6
  37. perhaps, they're just preprogramming them, getting locked by enemy SAMs they know are in the area, and firing them without a true interface.
    6
  38.  @Colinpark  Quite possibly. Didn't get many good looks at them. They'd shoot and scoot. Or they'd use them to lob rounds over the FOB walls as artillery, but low trajectory to avoid the blimp radar and artillery counterfire, so we never saw those.
    6
  39.  @RGC-gn2nm  A tanker knows how to use a tank. Merely takes a few months to transition to a new vehicle, learn some new equipment, and adapt the tactics. Same for other jobs. If you already have the basic skills, transfer of skills is easy.
    6
  40. clear F-16 influence. Chop the wings off and place it next to an F-16 fuselage if you don't believe me. Plus, the US gov did provide some degree of assistance on the LAVI. Mirage -> Kfir F-16 -> LAVI -> J-10 I love both the Kfir and the LAVI though, don't get me wrong.
    6
  41.  @andrewpease3688  oops, fixed
    5
  42.  @johnd2058  the Russian military is making so many other far more critical failures since day one. they have far bigger issues to be worrying about. They can't even conduct basic convoy ops properly. how they react to contact (ambush) is very amateur. It's hard to watch, compared to how my unit did similar in their shoes. but you can't compeltely blame the soldiers given how many seemed unready for a fight, many not knowing it Would be a fight, etc.
    5
  43. the P-39 achieved a 2:1 to 5:1 kill ratio against Japanese airplanes in the south pacific according to multiple mission reports. and was not as bad as believed. Later improvements leading to teh P-39Q made noticeable performance improvements. The P-39 was used as a low level striker and pilots did not get to fly it against Japanese aircraft using appropriate tactics, thus helping give it a bad reputation early on, and even some US pilots are on the record admitting they were unfairly harsh on the P-39 early in the war.
    5
  44. The war has been referred to as WW0, World War Zero.
    5
  45. I find your analysis about Vietnam and the multirole the F-4 Phantom ended up in is excellent. But it still seems like the F11F-1 and F8U-3 still should have been adopted as interceptors by other nations for interception and fighter roles.
    5
  46. Europe: "America, why do you keep getting involved in everyone's wars?" America: "Ok, we're out." Europe: "What!? You can't leave!!"
    5
  47. my Favorite A-12/SR-71 variant, yet most ignore it.
    5
  48. P-47 was so fast that it was never used as an air racer after the war.... Because it sucked below about 15-20k ft.
    4
  49. Actually, it's reverse of the Zero. Vertical fin Forward of the horizontal stabilizer. Zero had the stab forward of the fin. Many aircraft played with such arrangements, not just the Zero. The debate over such arrangements still continues on modern aircraft design. There are reasons for all configurations, but it also comes down to the expected operation of a given design to decide what makes sense. The P-51 also put the fin aft of the stab, as well as the P-40 and many others. Putting the rudder aft of the stabilizer in the Zero would give the Zero greater rudder authority in high angle of attack maneuvering, were it not for the fact the rudder doesn't extend below the stabilizer. Essentially, during slow or high-G maneuvering. At high AOA, the stab can block airflow to the rudder. Moving the rudder aft gets more of it into clean unobstructed air while maneuvering, restoring authority as compared to straight and level flying.
    4
  50.  @EdNashsMilitaryMatters  And that's why I love your channel
    4