Comments by "Old Guy Gaming Network" (@CRAZYHORSE19682003) on "The History Guy: History Deserves to Be Remembered" channel.

  1.  @TheHistoryGuyChannel  Yeah but when you look at how insane the world is becoming I find comfort that I will seen be history instead of having to live through it lol.
    14
  2. Actually, the myth of Napoleon being short is just that a myth. He was 5'7. He was also a military genius.....that is what they are comparing Shaka to. Someone who was a brilliant commander in the field. So you can leave that racist crap at the door.
    14
  3. F-15 performance in strait line speed maybe but the Arrow would have handled like a light bomber and woukd have been easy pickens for fighters like the F-4.
    9
  4. Whenever I see people bitching about the use of the Atomic bombs to end the war I always point to Japanese conduct or misconduct in the war and simply say it was karma.
    7
  5. Yea over 2 million people died in the military campaigns of Shaka. He was no different than any other bloodthirsty tyrant!
    5
  6.  @marklittle8805  Wing loading is not the end all be all in maneuverability. Take the B-58 Hustler, is is a slightly larger aircraft than the Arrow, it had a lower wing area and a higher thrust to weight ratio and I don't remember anyone saying man that B-58 maneuvered like a fighter. The Avro Arrow was designed to do one thing, go in a straight line really fast and she was perfectly suited for that. She was not designed at dogfight. While the Phantom was not the most agile of fighters, it was on par or better then most of it's contemporaries. As far as speed as designed the Arrow would have had a top speed of MACH 2.3 even with the Iroquois engines due to air frame issues. She would have had to have been redesigned with more titanium or stainless steel to deal with the heat friction so the F-4 could have kept up with her just fine.
    5
  7.  @ronniew3229  Here is some interesting things about steel. It has a melting point of 2800 degrees. However if you heat it to 1000 degrees it loses 50% of its strength. If you heat it to 1500 degrees it loses 90% of its strength. The fire retardant foam in the impact zone was knocked off leaving parts of the steel exposed to thermal creep. The steel still covered by the rife retardant foam were effectively insulated and retained the heat the steel absorbed.
    4
  8.  @doogleticker5183  I have never considered the Canadians flunkies. I am familiar with their military history and they have always been tough sons a bitches. I don't think any amount of improvements would have kept the Arrow relevant. It was designed for the interception mission, nothing else. It was an aircraft without a mission.
    4
  9.  @thatsnodildo1974  So does that mean that All Americans are guilty as we have stood by and allowed our Government to invade countless nations and kill millions of people and have done nothing?
    3
  10.  @kevindarkstar  The most LOGICAL explanation for that is molten aluminum. In it's molten state Aluminum has some strange properties when reacting with water. An exothermic reaction that releases pure hydrogen, oxygen, and massive amounts of heat. What did we see immediately after the buildings collapsed? The FDNY spraying the debris pile with water. Ground zero was in essence a chemical furnace and was inadvertently being fueled by the FDNY through constant spraying with water. Another interesting thing Molten aluminum does when exposed to water, it can explode violently with great force. Another good example of this phenomena was the USS Stark, it was hit by two exocet missiles, starting a fire that caused the aluminum superstructure to catch fire. The damage control teams pumped over 40 tons of water into the compartment and all it did was make the fires burn hotter and faster. They almost capsized the ship, it wasn't until they changed to special foam and chemical retardants that they put the fires out.
    3
  11.  @gregallen4272  A B-25 had a much lighter construction than a 767. The MAXIMUM takeoff weight of a B-25 was 35,000 pounds and it had a cruising speed of 230 miles per hour. It had a fuel capacity of 670 gallons. The 767 that hit the WTC had a max take off weight of 412,000 pounds and had a fuel capacity of 24,140 gallons and it his the WTC at speeds of 400 miles per hour. The Aircraft that hit the WTC generated over 65x the force as the B-25 that hit the empire state building.
    3
  12.  campbellscollision  You are incorrect, from the moment the FAA declared a hijacking 2 F-15's were in the air in less than 7 minutes out of Otis AFB in Massachusetts. They made it down to New York by going super sonic and made it there within a few minutes after the second plane hit. I would suggest that you listen to the ATC recordings from that day, it is CLEAR that they were not trained in how to deal with something like 9/11, the confusion and crazy rumors that were being spread that day effectively paralyzed the FAA for quite some time.
    3
  13.  @WasFakestCenturyAesthetics  Sorry, science and physics don't give a shit about someones personal beliefs. Do I believe we are being told the entire truth about 9/11, of course not. That does not change the FACTS that the WTC towers 1 and 2 were hit by aircraft and collapsed from the damage. Here is a paper written my MIT civil engineers that explain how the WTC failed. http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf
    3
  14.  @doogleticker5183  I am not stabbing them, the Arrow was a masterpiece of engineering. It reminds me of the F-35 in a way, the technologies associated with it were not even invented yet and the program was hugely ambitious. The problem was that technology was advancing so rapidly than brand new aircraft would be cutting edge technology when introduced and obsolete three or four years later. Take the area rule for example, it made all aircraft designed before it obsolete overnight. What I get tired of is the mythology that has surrounded the Arrow and replaced reality. People act like it was a super plane that could be serving to this day if they just built it which simply was not the case. The F-106 which flew 2 years before the Arrow was a better interceptor than the Arrow ever would have been and cost a tiny fraction of what the Arrow did.
    3
  15. I wish you wouldn't "Sell Out" to companies like Wargaming. They are one of the WORST predatory developers. The ships are NOWHERE near historically accurate. The Submarines in the game are more capable than Nuclear Fast Attack Submarines. World Of Warships is more like a gambling simulator.
    2
  16. You are wrong on several levels. The F-35 has more than DOUBLE the range of the Avro Arrow. The F-35 also has a higher payload capacity when using external hard points.
    2
  17. The Arrow was obsolete before it entered service. With the evaporation of the Soviet Bomber threat and the advent of ICBM'S the Arrow was an aircraft without a mission.
    2
  18.  @WasFakestCenturyAesthetics  No it is conspiratards who literally have no grasp of basic science or physics. It is what allows these absurd 9/11 theories to survive, conspiratards are too stupid to understand how silly they are.
    2
  19. Yeah, the F-4 first flew less than 2 months after the Arrow so it is doubtful that the Arrow had ANY influence on the F-4 Phantom Two especially considering the F-4 was a vastly superior aircraft to the Arrow.
    2
  20. You are correct, it is a common myth and one of the silliest ones.
    2
  21. I was on the Iowa then, they didn't bungle the investigation. It was a deliberate act.
    2
  22. Roflmao, ok keep telling yourself that. The F-106 which was developed at the same time as the Arrow was a better aircraft. The Arrow might have been a technological Marvel for Canada it was nothing special here in the US. We just figured out that super high performance manned interceptors were made obsolete by the ICBM before you guys did.
    2
  23. It is sad that the Navy has gone totally woke. In naming a Ford class carrier after Doris Miller it is a SLAP IN THE FACE of actual heroes of Pearl Harbor.
    2
  24. The Arrow would have been limited to MACH 2.3 by heat friction. It would have had to have been redesigned with far more titanium or even steel in order for it to go faster. There were radical versions of the Arrow that were on the design board with a MACH 3 speed but it was not this aircraft.
    2
  25.  @jasong9502  I don't think you give the F-4 enough credit in its air superiority abilities. A few reasons the F-4 did not perform well early in Vietnam were two things, it initially did not have a gun which was remedied and US pilots were not being taught how to dogfight anymore. If you look at Col Robin Olds and what his unit was able to accomplish, they DOMINATED the Migs they faced. In the hands of a skilled pilot the F-4 was deadly.
    2
  26.  @crackmonkeynet  The F-4 did not have good handling compared to what? 4th gen aircraft like the F-15, 16, and 18, you are correct. However against its fellow 3rd gen aircraft the Phantom was on par or better then most 3rd gen aircraft. Especially with the introduction of wing slats that greatly improved its maneuverability. Look at the Phantoms combat record in the second half of Vietnam, in Isaeli service, and in Iranian service. The F-4 has an outstanding record in air to air combat. It was a Jack of all trades, master of none. The Phantom would have flown circles around the Arrow and shot them down so easily, it woukd have been like Seal clubbing.
    2
  27. ROFLMAO, talk about being delusional. The Arrow was OBSOLETE, that is why it was canceled. It was an aircraft without a mission. The F-4 Phantom which made its first flight less than two months after the Arrow was superior in EVERY aspect. It was faster, far more maneuverable, better range, better avionics, better armament, higher service ceiling. The F-106 Delta Dart was a better interceptor than the Arrow would have been and you don't see people trying to bring it back.
    2
  28. Modern anti ship missiles are not equipped with an armor piercing warhead. A hit on the armored belt would do little damage to the Iowa's.
    1
  29. The Iowa's, South Dakota's or North Carolina class ships would have wiped the floor with the Bismarck.
    1
  30. I am a veteran of the USS Iowa, I served as a gunners mate in 16 inch turret one. I was there on April 19th when we had our gun turret explosion. The cause was pretty obvious to all of us on board, there was an accidental over ram of the powder bags in the center gun. The Navy was never interested in finding out what happened but were more interested in finding someone to blame. They falsified records, reports, and flat out ignored the crew in order to blame someone. On the sound powered phones you could hear GMG2 Lawrence the Gun Captain talking to plot, letting them know they were not ready to fire and that they had a problem they were trying to correct.
    1
  31.  @vincentgoudreault9662  I never said manned aircraft were obsolete. I said high performance interceptors were obsolete the moment the first ICBM was launched. The CF-101's were cheap, available and may not have had the raw top end speed they did have 5x the range of the Arrow. They should have taken delivery of the F-106 which flew before the Arrow and was a better all around aircraft.
    1
  32.  @theworldaccordingtochris4370  I am a veteran of the USS Iowa, I served as a gunners mate in 16 inch turret one, so I know a bit about what I am talking about. The Bismarck is perhaps the most overrated ship in HISTORY. The Iowa would have dispatched her in little time. The Iowa's armor scheme was significantly better than the Bismarck's obsolete WW1 layout. The Iowa's armor belt was designed to offer an immunity zone against 2250 pound AP shells between 18,000 and 30,000 yards. The Bismarck's AP shell weighed 1,764 pounds and It would have to get really close to the Iowa in order to penetrate her belt. The Bismarck's antiquated armor scheme meant she had poor deck armor and was vulnerable to plunging fire. At ranges of 18,000 to 30,000 yards the Iowa's 2700 pound AP shells would have opened up Bismarck like a can opener. Even at ranges of 35,000 yards the 2700 pound AP shell of the Iowas could penetrate 329mm of armor, enough to penetrate the Bismarcks 320mm belt armor. The Iowa's armor belt 12.1 inches (307 mm) thick mounted on 0.875-inch (22.2 mm) STS backing plate; the armor belt is sloped at 19 degrees, equivalent to 17.3 in (439 mm) of vertical class B armor at 19,000 yards. At 19,000 yards the Bismarcks 1,764 pound AP shell could penetrate 419mm of armor so the Bismarck would have to get to near point blank range to penetrate the Iowa's main belt, her long range plunging fire would have been ineffective against the Iowa's far superior deck armor scheme. Lastly the Iowa's fire control was LIGHT YEARS better than the Bismarck's. The fire control computer on the Iowa once it achieved a firing solution, it maintained it in real time, the Iowa could do figure 8's and still pour the most accurate battleship fire the world had ever seen. The Bismarcks fire control radar provided basic ranging information, that is it. If the Bismarck changed course or speed they would have to start over with ranging salvos all over again. The Iowa would sit at about 23,000 yards and pound the Bismarck into dust with the Bismarck unable to do ANYTHING about it. In Truth the South Dakota class battleships would have eaten the Bismarck alive a more even match would have been the North Carolina Class against the Bismarck.
    1
  33.  @nunyabizness199  I saw it for a few seconds before it hit. I was driving into DC from VA. I can say for certain it was a commercial aircraft, it wasn't a missile, it wasn't a Skywarrior, or any of the other moronic conspiracy theories.
    1
  34.  @WasFakestCenturyAesthetics  Actually it is the exact opposite. I was an eyewitness to the attack on the Pentagon so I KNOW a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon. When all these silly conspiracy theories started coming out, I KNEW the ones about the Pentagon were bullshit so I took the time to research the individual claims made by guys like Richard Gage and one by one I discovered they did not hold up to scientific cross examination. I also base my conclusions on the works done by MIT Civil Engineers and a series of papers written by them about the collapse. In these papers they explain why the buildings collapsed. I will also point out that a team from the American Society Of Civil Engineers had a team examine the steel from the WTC. They found ZERO evidence of a controlled demolition. Protec on of the leading demolition companies in the world was contracted to clean up ground zero. They found ZERO evidence of a controlled demolition. So if Civil engineers and demolition experts who were on scene and examined the debris could not find any evidence of a controlled demolition, I think I am going to take their opinion over internet experts.
    1
  35.  @chrisg7336  If you would bother to do any research yourself you would discover there have been plenty of reports and papers written on WTC-7. While it is true that it was not hit by an aircraft it wasn't the ONLY building destroyed by debris from the collapse of Towers 1&2. In fact WTC 3, 5, 6, 7, the Verizon Building, the Bankers Trust building, a Church were all destroyed or so heavily damaged from falling debris that they had to be torn down. I bet you are unaware that WTC-7 was built around an existing building, the Con/ED power substation meaning it did not have a full foundation and support system like almost EVERY other building designed. I bet you are unaware that the ENTIRE vertical load above the 8th floor was supported by only THREE columns. I bet you are unaware that the loss of a SINGLE column would start a progressive collapse that could not be avoided. I bet you are unaware that debris from the tower gouged out a 22 story hole in the corner of WTC-7 and compromised the internal support structure. I bet you are unaware that a prominent bulge formed in the SW corner of the building almost immediately after being struck by debris from the towers, a bulge indicating that WTC-7 was heavily compromised and in immediate danger of collapse. I bet you are also unaware that the heavily damaged WTC-7 had unchecked fires raging in the building for 7 hours before the final collapse. Yeah I am willing to bet you are totally unaware or deliberately ignoring it so you can keep parroting 9/11 nonsense you read off a conspiracy web site.
    1
  36.  David Petri  There was molten METAL found at the bottom of the rubble. It was never tested so its composition is unknown, saying it was steel is pure speculation especially since there were massive quantities of metal like copper and aluminum that have a much lower melting point. I suspect it was molten aluminum because if you do the research into how molten aluminum reacts to water you will understand why the temperatures at ground zero were so high for weeks. The NYFD was fueling what we could call a chemical furnace with water. The more water the poured onto ground zero the hotter it would get.
    1
  37.  Lats Niebling  I am assuming you are talking about the Dr. Neils Harritt paper on Thermite found in the WTC debris. I would suggest you do a little research, that paper was debunked for all the junk science in it. The "Thermite" turned out to be paint primer and rust lol.
    1
  38.  @WasFakestCenturyAesthetics  LOL Science and math don't need an official story in order to be valid. My believe comes from papers written by civil engineers at MIT. Papers written and published in Structural engineering magazines. It also comes from researching the claims made by conspiracy theorists and finding out they do not stand up to scientific cross examination.
    1
  39. Sir, please do not comment on things you have no idea what you are talking about. I am a veteran of the USS Iowa and I was there that day. Clay Hartwig was my best friend and the silly notion that he had something to do with it was 100% fabricated by the NIS. First Clay was the primer man in the center gun of turret two that day, he was no where near the powder bags. Second I had Breakfast with him that morning, he was not depressed, he was in good spirits and was excited about his upcoming change of duty station. Third the entire story about Clay having made advances towards a sailor and having those feelings rebuked is 100% made up, I know this because I was the sailor Clay was supposed to have made advances too. I was interrogated by the NIS for hours on end, days turned into weeks, and eventually into months. The NIS broke me in their interrogations and I signed a false confession just to get them to leave me alone. The very next day I told them it was bullshit and that it was not true but they leaked that confession to the press anyways. I remember the first time I was questioned by the NIS the very first thing they said was we know Clay did it. That was before any of the testing, investigation, anything. The NIS was looking to blame someone for the explosion and they chose Clay because he had his SGLI naming another sailor as his beneficiary that was it. Lastly GMG2 Lawrence who was the gun captain that day could be heard communicating with main plot, he kept telling them they were not ready and that they had a problem that they were trying to correct. Petty Officer Hanyecz was looking into the center gun room from the booth through the porthole said oh my god I see a flash. Seconds later he yelled out to Petty Officer Mortenson in our turret....Mort.....Mort and that was it. There was no sabotage involved at all. It was an accidental over ram of the powder bags and it set one of them off.
    1
  40.  @windsofmarchjourneyperrytr2823  Yep.
    1
  41.  @Jeyrod  I mean the investigation and the direction they took was a deliberate act. From almost the beginning the Navy was trying to frame Clay Hartwig instead of trying to find out what happened. They lied about him being the gun captain, ignored evidence, made up evidence.
    1
  42. So what you are saying is that the publication Mother Jones, a communist publication lied through their teeth about an evil capitalist company, say it isn't so!!!!!!!!!!!
    1
  43. Wrong, the Arrow was simply obsolete before it ever entered service. The F-4 Phantom with Flew less then 2 months after the Arrow was LIGHT years ahead of the Arrow.
    1
  44.  @landoragan4894  lol WRONG, The F4 Phantom was a continued development of the F3H-2N Demon which flew before the Arrow.
    1
  45.  @kenjoe  The F-106 was obsolete, that is why tthe order was reduced from something like 1200 aircraft to 342. It is also why no major amounts of money were spent upgrading it. The interceptor concept was obsolete the moment the first ICBM was launched. The F-4 a contemporary of the F-106 was a far superior aircraft.
    1
  46.  @landoragan4894  What couldn't break MACH 2? The F-106?
    1
  47. If you do a little research into how Doris Miller got his medal you will learn it was all a lie. In the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor the black press started a massive campaign of letter writing to members of the Navy, congress and Senate demanding that a black sailor be awarded a medal. They wanted a "Hero" of their own. At first they were ignored but they kept up the pressure for MONTHS, finally the USN caved and selected Miller at random. In order for it to not be a total sham they exaggerated what Miller did that day. There is ZERO evidence he shot down any aircraft, Miller himself said he didn't know if he got any, he said he might have gotten one. Miller is one of the earliest examples of Wokeism in the military, giving a man an award, not because of anything he did but because of the color of his skin. It is a DISGRACE that the WOKE Navy is naming a CVN after him, totally breaking tradition and protocol when it comes to naming Carriers. This will be the SECOND ship named after him which is a slap to the face of EVERY Medal Of Honor winner who has yet to have a ship named after him.
    1
  48. If you do a little research into how Doris Miller got his medal you will learn it was all a lie. In the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor the black press started a massive campaign of letter writing to members of the Navy, congress and Senate demanding that a black sailor be awarded a medal. They wanted a "Hero" of their own. At first they were ignored but they kept up the pressure for MONTHS, finally the USN caved and selected Miller at random. In order for it to not be a total sham they exaggerated what Miller did that day. There is ZERO evidence he shot down any aircraft, Miller himself said he didn't know if he got any, he said he might have gotten one. Miller is one of the earliest examples of Wokeism in the military, giving a man an award, not because of anything he did but because of the color of his skin. It is a DISGRACE that the WOKE Navy is naming a CVN after him, totally breaking tradition and protocol when it comes to naming Carriers. This will be the SECOND ship named after him which is a slap to the face of EVERY Medal Of Honor winner who has yet to have a ship named after him.
    1
  49. I remember the officers wearing these when I was in the Navy deployed to the Persian gulf in 1988.
    1
  50. Actually It was a 6 inch round from a shore battery
    1