Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Top 10 Military Planes" video.

sighs Horrible list, utterly horrible list. Fact the Junkers Ju87 did not make the list is utterly horrifying. It was the most successful ground support aircraft in WWII, and it did light years more work than the spitfire.
3
Spitfire is on the list but the BF109 isn't? These aircraft were pretty much on par when it came to their effect on history. Heck the Hurricane had a bigger impact on WWII than the Spitfire did. P51 is also heavily over rated. P47, and P38's did more for the war effort in WWII. P51 escorted bombers vs an airforce that by that time was a shadow for it's former self and magically got all the publicity and glory post war. Most on this list have had little to no real impact on history. Some of them were technical disasters. This isn't a popularity contest. Need to dig harder before making list like this. F4 Phantom was a technical disaster, in it's early years in Vietnam we were losing more of these aircraft in combat than the enemy flying inferior aircraft because the design relied completely on speed, and missiles, it couldn't dog fight, had no gun, and pilots were not trained to dog fight as they thought it wasn't necessary for the design. Just as one example. F4 is a poster child aircraft, that we made "Work" and hadn't ever faced "REAL" opposition, and the few rare times it faced top of the line soviet designs it didn't fare that well.
1
I have to agree really. Most of the aircraft on the list didn't have a huge impact on history. Heck the F4 was a disaster, if it had to fight top ofthe line soviet models of the era it likely would of been wiped clean, instead it mostly faced MiG17's in vietnam, and rarely saw the MiG21.
1
Boris Victoria Agility wise, the BF109G and K were comparable. Climb Rate wise, both were superior to the P51D variants. Diving, the P51D I think was comparable to the BF109G and K. I think the major area was energy retention which the P51D excelled in, and also because of this the P51D also had a higher top speed, and because of it's larger size, a longer cruising range. Fire Power was clearly in favor of the BF109K-4 though. That being said the BF109K-4 was built around a time in which manufacturing was crude. So saying that, the pilot would make a far better difference than which of these two aircraft were superior vs the other. They have pros and cons. But what they're pros and cons at are not SO better than the other that it would make a big obvious difference in a air battle. Example Erich Hartmann Germany's ace of aces, I think with a flight of 2-4 BF109Gs engaged a flight of P51 Mustangs late in the war. They successfully shot 7 of them down, Hartmann himself I think 3 or 4 of them. Hartmann's squadron of course were seasoned veterans who survived the Eastern Front, and just happened to chance upon a flight of P51 Mustangs a rare sight for them. Most cases when the P51 Mustang was king of the skies the role was reversed. Most BF109 pilots who would face the P51 Mustang were green, and were poorly trained, rushed into service. Normally lost any dog fights they were in. This is often used an excuse why the BF109 performed so badly vs the P51, and in some respects they're right to say that. But it isn't an excuse to call it superior to the P51 by all means in my opinion. If I had to choose between a P51 or BF109. I'd likely still choose the BF109. 20mm MG151 or a 30mm MK108, rather have just one of those than 6 .50cal Browning machine guns. Seems to be the same story on every flight sim I've flown in, they just rip planes a part, if you can connect of course.
1
deadlypineapple satsumas Main reason it's kind of pointless to argue which aircraft was superior. Sure a P51D vs maybe a BF109E or F, sure. But when people argue over the superiority of a BF109G or K vs a P51D. I can honestly say that the BF109 for it's time was better by a long shot vs early P51s even before they were called the P51. But that didn't last but a few years. The P51 suffered the same flaw as the P38 and P47, using super chargers to gain a performance boost, which hated high altitude, and cold weather. P51 Early types were worse than even the P38 and P47 at high altitude. Ironic being when the P51 would take over the role of the P38 and P47, and the P38 and P47 would take over the early P51's roll, ironic right? lol That being said I'm often a Critic of American aircraft design from WWII. We ate a lot of our own bullshit. But that being said, so did the Germans shrugs But we critics the Germans all the time freely but Criticizing the American aviation industry among Americans is like attacking a sacred cow. lol
1
deadlypineapple satsumas I don't think it's because the P51 Mustang is so nerfed in all games. It likely has more to do with it just not performing the way "Gloaty" American fighter pilots claimed it could. I've heard too many stories of a single P47 or P51 pilot shooting down half a dozen BF109's in a single pass to believe half the Bull Shit they spit out when interviewed. I mean Jane's WWII Fighters, my first WWII simulation, I learned to love the Fw190 over using the P51, as it was just clearly better at killing aircraft. Pretty much a fact to be honest. Jane's WWII Fighters isn't a bias game either, heck the P51 Mustang is the hallmark of the game marketing. lol
1
Boris Victoria It was never designed as a high altitude fighter. It became one, by chance. Pretty much from it's early Proto Type days when it was marked as NA instead of (P) in RAF service. To I think what the P51C or was that B? shrugs forgot. It was a low altitude fighter.
1
deadlypineapple satsumas Allies didn't lose all their veterans in the west because we had high rotation rate. American pilots flew dozens of missions before being rotated back home. German pilots flew hundreds and thousands until they died. This also meant Germany would lose the Cream of the experience, instead of sending experienced pilots back home to train new recruits, the Germans forced them to keep flying. At the same time Germany cut the number of flight ours during training a number of times during the war, so each new generation of pilot was worse than the last. It has nothing to do with who's aircraft were better. Compound that with the massive numerical advantage the Allies continued to gain during the war, even if Germany had all ACE pilots all the time it likely wouldn't of changed the air war much. To put it into retrospect. Germany lost more pilots attacking Allied Bombers, than they did engaging Allied Fighters. =3
1
IL-2 is nothing special. It's been heavily over hyped mostly because of the game IL-2. I always found it amusing for example that if you pit a Ju87D-5 vs a IL-2 (any variant) on a good sim Ju87D-5 almost always wins. IL-2 heavy cannon variant vs a Ju87G almost always ends up the same as well. IL-2 was a flying tank but it also made it a bigger sitting Duck than a Stuka. IL-2's like the Ju87 were shot down in their scores, which aided greatly to high German victory tallies in the East. I think the best way of describing it is that it was over weight, under powered, and often even lacked firepower. The bomb loads on a IL-2 were pathetic, and if it wasn't for their cannons they'd be relatively worthless aircraft. Heck early versions didn't even have a gunner. IL series improved really but mostly post war, but by then Jets started taking over. IL series is really just had a footnote on history. I would rate the Ju87 easily above it on it's impact on history. Heck I'd rate most aircraft from the war above it on their impact on history.
1