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