Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Military Aviation History"
channel.
-
156
-
38
-
33
-
25
-
18
-
17
-
A-10 is cheaper per hour for the bombs put on target than other jets. Longer loiter time, slower and lower on target (smart munitions are making their mark now though). The gun may not work as well against certain targets, but not all targets are heavy main battle tanks either. The gun works for troops, bunkers, etc too. The psychological effect of the A-10 and its gun on the enemy should not be overlooked. I've been in Combat and gotten support from Kiowas, Apaches, Cobras, Predators, and A-10s, B-1, etc. Seeing those A-10s coming in low making danger close gun runs has a huge effect on friendly troops, and enemy troops, good for us, bad for them. Since the 30mm isn't good enough, then the 20mm of other jets is even less effective. and why should infantry and helicopters have 50cal and 20mm if they are worthless? guns are guns, and they work.
The gun is also objectively better than the gun on the Su-25, but i don't hear anyone complaining about that.
Bullet holes are hard to count from the air, and bombs falling afterwards can mask gun kills. Just look at the over estimated impact of CAS on tanks in WW2, such as by the Typhoon.
15
-
14
-
14
-
12
-
10
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@grizwoldphantasia5005 the 3 best dive bombers of WW2? F4U, A-36, and take your pick for the third (SBD, SB2C, Val, Ju87, etc.).
The A-36 service life had nothing to do with its accuracy. It was a stop gap limited run until the P-51 production started. But the airplane was praised by people like Robert Johnson, and so beloved by its pilots, who preferred it over the P-47 even, that they flew them until the very last one was damaged beyond repair. They fought tooth and nail to keep those planes flying to avoid switching to something else.
The F4U became the Navy dive bomber by the end of the war, with a 4000lb payload it was the F-35 of its day. Decks being filled with F4U and A-1 after the war.
A-36 and F4U were far superior to the SBD, SB2C and others due to multirole fighter capability (self escorting), accuracy, speed, etc. And could use a variety of bombs as well as rockets.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hlynnkeith9334 "The Luftwaffe achieved air superiority time and again over Norway."
time and again? what does that even mean?
Also, you are wrong, the Allies continued to attack Norway throughout teh war, including some famous 8th Air Force bombing missions.
"The Luftwaffe achieved air superiority time and again over Poland. "
time and again? what does that even mean? either they did, or they didn't. you seem confused. Yes, by conquering Poland, not the same as achieving air superiority the way the US does. the US even dominates airspace it doesn't control on the ground. Poland and Norway were both occupied on the ground.
"time and again", you keep using that phrase and it's nonsense.
"The Imperial Japanese Navy and the Imperial Japanese Army achieved air superiority over the Philippines. "
wrong, they conquered Philippines, not the same. you're deeply confused.
"The Imperial Japanese Navy achieved air superiority over Oahu. "
literally never happened. something like 1 fighters took off that day, with about 7 pilots scoring kills, and the IJN took so many losses they called off the third wave of attacks.
"The Luftwaffe achieved air superiority time and again over Russia. "
literally never happened.
2
-
2
-
The specialist aircraft historically keep winning over multirole.
How to Design a Legendary Multirole Aircraft:
1) Design an amazing air superiority fighter or other purpose-built design
2) see how that aircraft can be upgraded and/or adapted to fit other roles (recon, ground strike, Electronic warfare, SEAD...)
Case Examples: F4U, P-38, Mosquito, F-16, F-15E, F-14, A-7 (from F-8), F-18 Growler, C-130, Rafale, F-4, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Your idea of "should it be able to take damage?" is bullshit.
1) aircraft takes hits, aircraft is lost, pilot bails out, pilot is captured and possibly tortured or killed. Propaganda value for enemy, loss of valuable pilot to us, potential resources tied up rescuing pilot, bargaining chip for enemy.
2) aircraft takes hits, aircraft limps back, pilot is saved to fly again the next day. Aircraft is lost to damage, but spare parts can be salvaged.
In both scenarios the plane is lost, but not always. Sometimes it's worth fixing. But either way there is no objective assessment here that the plane shouldn't bring the pilot back.
You: "stay outside the danger zone/s"
Spoken like a true desk warrior. you clearly don't understand the reality that is warfare. The danger zone is where these aircraft are MEANT to go, where they Must go by necessity. You can't always assume a permissive air environment. I suggest you study Vietnam and the SAM + AAA threat more closely to understand where the A-10 comes from. One A-10 in desert storm took a direct hit to the wing from a SAM and flew back to base. The picture has been hard to find lately, but try doing that with another plane. The A-10 was also designed before the dominance of guided precision/smart weapons, which have changed the need for striking from as low and as close. Judge the design of the plane for the environment it was designed for, not for the environment it now faces. You can judge its suitability going forward, but put its Design in context.
Yes, gun vs precision guided munition with huge explosive shaped warhead against tanks? no brainer who wins that. But enough rounds on target can disable or kill a modern tank. The A-10 gun could still kill battle tanks like Saddam had, even if they didn't get much opportunity to do so with the gun specifically. The gun has other value against ALL OTHER vehicles. The bulk of any military is Not tanks, but trucks, APCs, etc that cannot survive the A-10 gin in the least bit. Also, guns are good against entrenched infantry. By your argument, we shouldn't make armored gun trucks either, because they shouldn't be built to survive in a dangerous environment, and we shouldn't mount 50cal machine guns on our trucks when we have javelin missiles, Carl Gustav and At-4 recoilless, etc. Yes, Maverick/Hellfire worked, they did the job they were designed to do, and can literally be fired from anything including a C-130 or a LCS navy warship. That in NO WAY is a condemnation of the gun.
Many less F-16s were lost also because of their use of Towed Decoys that surely saved many. A-10s didn't have these.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobsakamanos4469 "The LAST thing anyone should do is to argue based on the greg videos. He refuses to acknowledge or correct mistakes, omissions or untruths."
fair point, as I've called him out before many times using his own source materials and he threatened to block me for it.
But he does a good job overall. but the key is to look at his sources more than his personal claims, assumptions, or opinions.
My sources are the same as his, but I've also been able to talk to people who have and still are working on the merlin and Allison engines, and they all swear by the allison for numerous reasons not in the books. I've also talked with authors of some of the books people cite.
Detonation was not an engine issue. mostly carb, turbo, and pilot skill related to engine mixture control were primary issues. the other allison aircraft largely did not suffer these problems due to different mixture controls, no turbo, etc. And Allisons remain the preferred engine of restorations today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
P-38 made its first flight only 3yrs after the Bf110, and well before US involvement in WW2. the P-38 is more so an early war US design like the F4F, P-40, and P-39, not a late war design like the P-51, F8F, F7F, etc. But you could argue it's a sort of mid war fighter, along with the F6F, P-47, and F4U.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Wuppie62 I was unable to discern which comment of min you were responding to.
Also, I never advocated the need to put nukes in Ukraine. This was a discussion about Germany, not Ukraine.
Germany does not need to waste it's limited and precious resources on nukes. One, as you pointed out, NATO has nukes and will respond on Germany's behalf as appropriate and as required. Two, by the time Germany realized it was under rea life nuke attack, it would be too late to fire its own, as Germany is so close to Russia, thus again defeating the point of having nukes. Three, nukes are expensive to build, maintain, protect, etc. Funds which could be better spent on Europe's incredibly inadequate number of fighter jets, munitions, and other weapon systems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobsakamanos4469 "Lots of on-line talk about allies overboosting the engines, but engine fires, and detonation was problematic. It wasn't til 1944 that Allison finally upgraded their intake manifold."
I actually talked to some experts on this a few months ago. Guys who worked for Rolls Royce as ngineers and mechanics, worked on both the Allisons and Merlins, and are doing primarily Allison work exclusively now. They dispute that vehemently. They have access to original blueprints and engineering details on the Allison no one else has access too (and I was debating them as an engineer and pilot myself). When I brought up the intake, carb, etc. they said it wasn't true. Perhaps some people didn't set them up right or something sometimes, but they said there is no real problem with it.
The Allison is a very durable engine (provided it didn't lose cooling), and they shared a LOT of interesting details why the Allison was the better engine that I never knew nor heard of before. they've been used and abused ever since WW2. We went over a lot of neat engineering data most non-engineers would not understand. Technically minded/skilled people would understand, but we really got into it with some aspects. had a great one-on-one 1.5hr discussion with them about it.
I've also seen first hand accounts of people who fly warbirds today that say the P-40 is tough to beat at low altitude, and that for airshow work, teh P-40 is the most fun due to the allison engine being a beast at airshow altitudes.
1
-
1
-
@gagamba9198 "It's politically untenable to FDR to sue for peace."
given the way it happened, yes. but the way I would have done it, FDR would have had little choice.
"How many ships did the US raise and repair? Even if all the aircraft carriers were there and damaged/destroyed, it shifts much of Atlantic fleet to California."
you don't even know what my plan is. and everything you say here is 100% irrelevant. not one ship could be raised until peace was achieved if done my way.
"That's Yorktown, Ranger, and Wasp. Hornet's shakedown is expedited."
Ranger wasn't a proper carrier. Was, Hornet, and Yorktown were all sunk in the early battles of the pacific, without all the losses my plan would have caused. Also, you forgot Saratoga. But again, peace would be achieved before any ships could be repositioned from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
"Is your gambit the oil tank farm? There's more than one way to skin a cat."
Wow, you're such an amateur. Do you even know Anything about WW2 Naval history, anything about Naval warfare theories and doctrines?
1
-
1
-
1