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