Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Military Aviation History" channel.

  1. The US started equipping ships with lots of guns, air radar, and fused rounds, long before Kamikaze attacks became common. Thanks much in part to Admiral Lee.
    156
  2. never knew the Ju-87 had a target window
    38
  3. I received danger close (within 200-500yds of my position)drop of 38, 500lb bombs from a B-1 in Afghanistan. Even knowing it was friendly, it was TERRIFYING (but somewhat thrilling and exhilarating at the same time). Ground shaking like an earthquake underneath you, the blast pressure, the large chunks of shrapnel raining down on top of us.... Luckily none of us got hurt by the shrapnel, but there were close calls. All the while I was thinking, "this must have been how the Germans felt in Berlin in WW2".
    33
  4. tore down their energy to build nukes?
    25
  5. yes, airpower is just artillery. it has the high ground and longer range, but is really just fancy artillery in the end.
    18
  6. Had the Allison gotten the 2-stage supercharger they were supposed to get, the P-51 never would have used the Merlin, and the 2-stage Allison Mustangs would have blown the Merlin mustangs out of the water in terms of performance, including having longer range, higher speed and climb rate. North American only looked at the Merlin after realizing they weren't going to get the 2-stage supercharged Allison they wanted. And North American started the work to install the Merlin 6months prior to the British first mentioning the idea of putting a Merlin into the Mustang.
    17
  7. 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
  8.  @seanmac1793  Well, since no AAA claimed the kills, we can. He knocked these aircraft out of formation, before the flak had a crack at them. the flak didn't force them out of formation. O'Hare gets the kills.
    14
  9.  @MilitaryAviationHistory  sounds like a good problem to have....
    14
  10. the V-1710 was producing 1850HP at 70" MAP in 1942, and 2200HP at 70" MAP by 1944. Allison tested and verified this, even if the official manuals stated lower. And reports from both the British and US leadership documented that Allied pilots were known to be pushing the engines to 72-75" of MAP regularly.
    12
  11.  @seanmac1793  Which means those planes were shot down. Therefore, it is reasonable to award O'Hare since he clearly dealt the most damage.
    10
  12.  @Pikilloification  Taiwan also used teh P-38 for a time. Basically the US was trying to get rid of its unwanted expensive airplanes and gave them away for free to needy allied countries. Taiwan operating fighters the US no longer wanted doesn't prove those unwanted aircraft were better by any stretch of the imagination.
    9
  13. The Su-57 is so "stealthy", it can't defeat the Ukrainian air force, can't penetrate Russian-made and western-made air defenses with impunity, and basically has been a complete nonfactor in the war.
    7
  14. other drones are cheaper and more numerous and easily made/sourced. Switchblades come ONLY from the US via aid packages.
    7
  15. P-63 arrived too late to do much, but the Russians operated the P-63 into the Korean war, and a famous incident occured with a US pilot got lost and strafed soviet P-63s at a soviet airfield inside russia.
    6
  16.  @naamadossantossilva4736  not every German died in the bombings. And those who died wouldn't remember what it felt like.
    6
  17. and the RAF also used the P-47 late in PTO too due to being tougher and longer ranged than the Spitfire.
    6
  18. interesting way of looking at it. Logistically it is compelling. But then you look at multiple accounts of pilots trying to get multiple kill credit for shooting down cargo planes full of pilots and stuff like that. But it becomes near impossible to measure objectively that way. Also, a single engine airplane couldn't do Strategic bombing, so yes 4 engines takes more resources, but without those 4 engines, that mission wouldn't be possible in the first place. And replacing that bomber with 4 single engine planes wouldn't do it either. Also, logistically speaking, more engines makes the price per engine go down and helps improve mass production. So I find your perspective interesting from a purely logistical point of view, I can't see it being used as an objective metric of success concerning Ace pilots and what that means. Being an Ace is about defeating the enemy at a favorable rate such that if attrition was the name of the game, the side with the most Aces would ultimately win (in a purely idealistic and hypothetical way). It's a measure of success and prowess of the individual, not a statement about logistics.
    6
  19. that 1/3rd rule is utter nonsense. My unit deployed to Iraq years ago at 2/3 strength to begin with. We easily operated with 1/3 short of manpower and resources. And we jammed the enemy 100%, and they were still able to fight.
    5
  20. US hasn't lost yet. yes, we always look back and make mistakes. but so are our enemies, and they have even less experience to draw from than we do. But people don't realize how far forward looking some in the military actually are. No one has a crystal ball. People simply don't realize just how OP the US military is in many ways.
    5
  21.  @CitizenSmith50  Yes, the bombs helped force the issue. Keep in mind though that some people didn't believe the initial reports, many in Japan didn't believe the US had more of them (they were very nearly right in the short term). And many in Japan still wanted to fight on, had the Emperor stepped in to decide the matter. So the nukes didn't guarantee surrender, but it surely helped, on the back of the destruction of the Japanese Navy and Airforce, being cut off from supplies and material, ongoing food shortages, complete disruption of manufacturing and transportation, etc.
    4
  22. Red Baron had 82 kills, but 2 weren't "verified" by Germany. Eddie Rickenbacker had 27 or 28 kills, but only 26 were credited due to limits of verification. Russians wont share crap for records, and likely even destroyed their records. They don't want people to know how badly things went for them. 24mil dead Soviets in WW2, with a good portion of them dying in the skies. Also, just because one subset of claims lacks high verification, doesn't mean another subset couldn't have been far higher. And even the British didn't keep as good of records in WW2 as the US did (their own losses they did have good records of though). Most other nations like Russia weren't keeping very good records if at all at times.
    4
  23.  @jimrankin2583  F8F was the ultimate point defense interceptor, but like the Spitfire it suffered from lack of range and useful payload. Also, late in the war in PTO, the RAF exchanged its Spitfires for P-47 in Asia due to range, payload, and durability of the P-47. also, US cranked out more aircraft faster and had more available. And the F4U and such had far greater range, payload, and were excellent fighters at low altitude of naval engagements. Speed and climb rate was far more important than maneuverability in WW2.
    4
  24. You cannot do a comparison without including the A-36, which was precise enough to make danger close drops to support troops in contact.
    4
  25.  @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
  26. the anger is justified, especially if we know they wont be used. why waste money and resources on something dangerous that you have no intention of using?
    4
  27.  @MilitaryAviationHistory  "If things go south, do they not also go North " No He clearly stated "once you're at the North pole". The moment things go south, you're no longer at the North Pole and the statement no longer applies.
    4
  28. Werner Voss's famous final flight proves this, as a case example.
    4
  29.  @grizwoldphantasia5005  And the A-36 and F4U got results. You're mistaking volume of numbers for superior results. Had the same numbers of F4U and A-36 been employed for as long as the others, they'd have gotten even grater results. None of the Ju87, Val, nor SBD are any match for the F4U or A-36. All of your 3 picks were obsolete by 1942. They soldiered on, but they were outclassed. Both the F4U and A-36 airframes soldiered on into the 1980s and multiple conflicts post-WW2, particularly in ground attack roles.
    3
  30.  @tyisen5125  "Also, what does that 'mistake 3' mean?" I want him to explain this too "Whole lotta reasons for why they sucker punched the US." Yup. and I actually have detailed a way in which the attack on Peral Harbor might have worked (there is a list of changes that need to be made for the plan to have any chance of success, but it may well have worked).
    3
  31.  @Triple_J.1  "I think it has to do with relying on NATO being well coordinated and relying on comms to operate effectively. " shows how little you know. I was part fo NATO, fought as a member of NATO forces. The US military THRIVES in chaos. Most of our missions we had no radio contact at all, we had no support nor backup at all. We made crap up on the fly. The US military is excellent BECAUSE we're so good in chaos and when we don't have comms, etc. Jam us all you like, we're still going to kill you (who ever our enemy is at the moment). US uses a bottom up structure, Russia and most other militaries use a top-down system. Without comms and coordination they are paralyzed. In the US we actually fight BETTER when cut off from higher command.
    2
  32.  @KD--sj8eo  cringe? how so? in what way? perhaps you should include an actual argument, otherwise your comment and claim is invalid.
    2
  33.  @bobsakamanos4469  that is due to teh turbocharger itself, not the engine. this is a known and documented issue. the hot air from the turbocharger was the limiting factor. go read the reports from WW2, watch greg's video on it, etc.
    2
  34.  @uknwarrior7980  "- Considering much more sophisticated guided systems like JDAM and GMLRS were eventually jammed quite effectively, Switchblade likely was a heavy victim to EW." nonsense comment. no civilian drone can thrive in a jammed environment. Switchblades would be far more likely to survive such an environment. But as you can plainly see, jamming on the battlefields of Ukraine is not a common thing at all. Precision guided munitions have been striking Russian targets for years now with near impunity. "- Awful payload. Switchblade was meant for assassinations, not destroying armored vehicles. It's blast force is extremely limited in damage especially against armored vehicles " wrong, the payloads are built for specific missions. one is of smaller soft targets like people, the other is for vehicles. There is more than one switchblade design.
    2
  35.  @ВячеславСкопюк  not russian records, as was clearly stated. only a SMALL fraction of claims were able to be verified, and many from hungarian records. did you even watch the video?
    2
  36.  @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
  37. More like the F4F, F4U, P-39, P-38, and P-40. Hurricane did not fight much past 1943
    2
  38. 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
  39.  @grizwoldphantasia5005  One, those are not dive bombers. Fritz-X was actually missed most of its targets. But then again, what did I expect when a person picks 3 of the most obsolete aircraft of all WW2 from the major powers, and claims they are the best thing ever. Ju-87 was pulled from frontline duty in teh battle of britain. SBD soldiered on due to lack of alternatives and being tough, as well as having good tactics and air cover. Val was slaughtered in every battle after Pearl Harbor.
    2
  40. they appear on radar just fine due to the engine/s and all the other metal bits. GA composite aircraft and older wood aircraft do not show up on ATC radars as well. Transponders address that.
    2
  41. nothing stealthy about a hypersonic generating tones of heat and plasma.
    2
  42. 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
  43.  @mbak7801  "Not having them means they will be used on you." wrong. Name one country, other than Japan, that has been nuked for not having nukes. Taiwan doesn't have nukes. Vietnam didn't/doesn't have nukes. Chechnya doesn't have nukes. Georgia doesn't have nukes. Ukraine doesn't have nukes. North Korea never got nuked before getting nukes. Iraq didn't get nuked, nor did Afghanistan.
    2
  44. Only one of Russia's weapons functions in real life and is nothing more than a very old, very large, missile. The others are are just concepts. Most of China's stuff is more propaganda than anything. US actually has tech, holds all the records including speed and the only manned hypersonic aircraft, and we have physical proof the systems/tech actually exists.
    2
  45. the A-36 was even more of a sniper as a dive bomber.
    2
  46. and yet, the P-39 still scored a positive kill ratio over the Japanese fighters, including the Zero. And the later P-39Q the USAAF used in the Philippines and such, could outclimb the Zero. and the P-39 was the US's most maneuverable fighter in all of WW2.
    2
  47. Britain made lots of baffling decisions in aerospace over the years, as well as in WW2 itself.
    1
  48. Starving the Japanese islands through mines, submarine warfare, and airpower. Destruction of the means of production by cutting off supply of raw materials and through destruction of transportation and manufacturing. Demonstration of the nukes proving that any further resistance was pointless and would only result in insane casualties for the same end result.
    1
  49.  @Aaron-wq3jz  I assume you're talking about their ability to make do with what they have and get it done regardless. If my assumption was correct, I agree.
    1
  50.  @Fillipok  the last full fledged war Russia was involved in was WW2
    1