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

  1.  @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
  2. cockpit reminds me of the Hawker Tornado or early Typhoon. Tail reminds me of Hurricane. Wings and landing gear look almost like they came off a Spitfire. Engine jowl clearly looks like a Tornado, Typhoon, or Tempest.
    4
  3.  @dalejmobiledalej6361  Yes, I know of a few times an RPG failed to detonate and hung in the bar armor, but I never witnessed that personally, only saw pictures. and unsure if it was a HE or AT warhead. Every RPG fired at my unit detonated one way or another.
    4
  4. just like the OV-10
    4
  5. the Allison engine was producing 1700hp down low, and up to 2200hp by war's end. "Also worth noting that later mustangs were not as fast down in the weeds." becasue the allison engine is superior down low. Did you know the P-40 was faster than the P-47 at low altitudes? And the P-38 proved that with a proper induction system, the Allsion was even superior to the Merlin at altitude as well. The Allisons of the P-38 easily produced more horsepower at altitude than a Merlin. Greg even did a video about this.
    4
  6. @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
  7. the F-35 has internal air-to-air load, greater internal fuel, and therefore can super cruise with air to air weapons, and without need for drop tanks. or you can cruise subsonic with tanks until you get closer to the engagement area.
    4
  8. Don't forget, no radios. But the armor wasn't always as lacking as people think. But the airframe itself was more fragile than typical American aircraft. Also, many self-sealing tank designs have reduced fuel capacity for the same volume of fuel tank than those without self-sealing features (not just weight penalty, but a fuel volume penalty). Also, many Japanese designs had smaller payload capacity (bombs) than their counterparts.
    4
  9. 3:15 you can actually see elements of what would become the F4U Corsair emerging in that picture.
    4
  10. British always making excuses and blame others. They did well enough to destroy their own aviation industry all on their own.
    4
  11. these are the types of planes I love hearing about.
    4
  12. Radial engine fighters obsolete? F4U (a 1930s design), F6f, F4F, P-47, FW190, F8F, Sea Fury, A-1, etc. But speed over pure maneuverability was established in the interwar period with the Hawker Hart. Maneuverability matters not if you can't catch your opponent. The faster plane can run away, or run you down.
    4
  13.  @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
  14.  @joachimhupe4018  good point. Just look at US education system. We spend more than anyone by far, yet get worse performance year after year. The problem was Never lack of money, it was the takeover of bad ideas that people are finally noticing. I can provide a far superior education to kids and college students on a miniscule budget compared to what is being spent.
    4
  15. Operation Starvation is fascinating, and a campaign I'm well aware of.
    3
  16. I've always considered the Winter War as WW2, because Russia was a belligerent nation in WW2 at the same time. Part of why WW2 is called a WORLD war. it was globe spanning.
    3
  17. are you sure about that? how does a nuclear reactor generate electricity?
    3
  18. When is DCS adding this mod? ;)
    3
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21.  @Shaun_Jones  yes, but you can't count on that happening, and probably fortunate it doesn't happen often as now you have to deal with a damaged explosive that can still go off.
    3
  22. given that the aircraft could not repeat its speed over 485mph, and the fact the engine failed after only 10hrs due to apparently being pushed beyond its limits to break 500mph, the 505mph speed does NOT COUNT.
    3
  23. They are standing up a laser battalion in the Army. Had lasers aboard warships for years now. Lots of anti-drone and base defense laser testing for over a decade now as well. at the current rate of progress, lasers will become common on all warships, many aircraft, and even ground forces.
    3
  24.  @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
  25. Unmanned K-MAX has been used for many years now in actual service. Hummingbird, Fire Scout, and many others have been tested and fielded as well. Once you have the software for one helicopter, you have software for all of them.
    3
  26. to be fair, the F-111 was shot down in combat multiple times. F-22 while only having 1 kill has never been defeated so far.
    3
  27. 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
  28. If the prototype couldn't replicate it's suspicious speed run that destroyed its engine, then it doesn't count as the fastest, period.
    3
  29. The zeros did actually have some armor. It was more a matter of having less durable airframes to save weight. Japan also didn't have radios, to save weight. But I agree with your assessment. The other designs weren't inferior, just being employed against the Zero and other designs incorrectly.
    3
  30. reminds me of the XP-77
    3
  31. How is that immigration policy treating you Brits?
    3
  32. the P-40 landing gear cost it a lot of speed. They never addressed that. And it really needed an all-new wing.
    3
  33.  @daszieher  yup, which is why North American offered a clean sheet design. They knew they could do better than the P-40 when the British came calling. They'd had a chance to learn from past designs as well as benefited from recent NACA aerodynamic testing data. They knew how to fix the P-40, but to do so was easier to start clean sheet.
    3
  34.  @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
  35. My general opinion of British aircraft design: occasionally they create a true beauty, but 95% of the time they are downright hideous. Most designs are so ugly I wouldn't want to fly them even if given the opportunity. But the Brits have made some truly noteworthy designs, aesthetics aside.
    3
  36.  @HamiltonStandard  and it's not the first warship/boat to get hit or be sunk
    3
  37. No mention of the Mosquito?
    3
  38. 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
  39. right? for decades the US at large has tried to get Europe to contribute more to their own defense and stop relying on the US. And Europeans hated US getting in others' business. Now we finally got what the US public wanted, and what the Europeans claimed they wanted. and everyone that claimed they wanted this is mad. ironic really.
    3
  40.  @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
  41. The F-35 is cheaper than many European 4th gen fighters. the high cost of teh F-35 is a myth, born of ignorance by journalists who had no clue what they were talking about..
    3
  42. A-1 skyraider, had it made it into the fight, would have been interesting too
    3
  43. wrong. first the Wrights had no ability/authority/clout to suppress anything. Even the Wright's feat wasn't public knowledge until years later. Nobody has come anywhere close to the Wright Brothers. Even years after the Wrights, others had also independently achieved powered flight. But none were as capable as the Wrights even years later. Not one claim of powered flight prior to the Wrights has been substantiated.
    3
  44. 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
  45. why does nobody ever mention nor include the Bell XP-77 when talking about wooden airplanes? Even the US was thinking about aircraft made from non-strategic materials.
    3
  46. the F2G sounds like a better choice than the F8F to me. More HP, useful bomb load, fast, longer range than the F8F I suspect. and proven design. Not a one-trick-pony like the F8F.
    3
  47. If you compare teh P-64 to the Boomerang, don't forget about the P-51 and CA-15 Kangaroo
    3
  48.  @joachimhupe4018  Money helps, no doubt, but it's not everything. Money alone can't buy innovation, i see it all the time in engineering.
    3
  49.  @ChristianThePagan  China makes lots of circuit boards, but less so the high tech sophisticated "chips" that mount to them. Those tend to be made in Japan, Taiwan, US, etc.
    3
  50. the P-40 is VERY underrated, and actually performed well against the Germans and Japanese. It just wasn't as good as other newer designs. It had aerodynamic flaws and such, but it was rather good and reasonably competitive. It just requires nuance to talk about it. Most people are not good at nuance.
    3