Comments by "" (@danieleyre8913) on "Found And Explained" channel.

  1. Neither plane “won the Battle of Britain”. The entire concept is moronic.
    8
  2.  @stephend4909 Yuh good luck with that.
    6
  3. The wirrraway was a trainer and light bomber. The Boomerang was the fighter. And it wasn’t very good.
    4
  4. You’re talking about a bogan who thinks that one ace and the country he came from won the entire battle.
    4
  5.  @leekent3587 No aircraft won the Battle of Britain. It was won by the air Marshalls and air ministry and the pilots. And the both the Hurricane and spitfire units tackled both bombers and fighters.
    3
  6.  @tsubadaikhan6332 There was an Indian air service. But it wasn’t any combat force until 1942. And its pilots served almost exclusively in Burma.
    3
  7.  @FoundAndExplained Look at what you titled your video, noddy.
    2
  8.  @peterrhodes5663 I agree. I first thought Australians were just joking when they told me that they decided the entire First World War with the counter attack at Amiens in 1918. Then was somehow both horrified and sent into laughter when I realised that they really either believe this or maintain a pantomime of believing it, and that some Australian historians and some educators have told them this.
    2
  9.  @peterrhodes5663 The Dardanelles is not celebrated at all here in New Zealand. It is remembered as a horrendous tragedy and debacle, even though NZ’s soldiers were generally successful within the wider defeat. I know from personal experience that this is not the case in Australia. I was in Sydney on Anzac Day in 2009 and got up for the local dawn service. I had to leave early in disgust at the trashy bogan idiot’s waving Australian flags, cheering like they were celebrating a victory, and t-shirts I saw many of them wearing with “f*ck off, we’re full” printed on them.
    2
  10.  @ChrisHUTTON-zc4br The Battle of Britain was decided by superior commanders. Hugh Dowding and Keith Park (and to a lesser extent Trafford Leigh-Mallory) were superior commanders of air warfare to Hermann Goering, Hugo Sperrle, and Albert Kesselring. The idea that Germany snatched defeat from the jaws of Victory by switching to bombing cities had been debunked a few times. 11 group were on the ropes at one point, but 12 Group and 13 group were never in as much trouble. The Germans always underestimated British numbers and industrial output.
    2
  11.  @Gattobuono Yes but most Australians think the world ends with the Anglosphere.
    2
  12. The Mustang was not useless without the Merlin. That is total nonsense. The Mustang’s strength was its extreme streamlining and response & controllability at high speed. It was still a beast with the Allison engine at lower altitudes. Their employment by RAF army co-operation command/2TAF on “rhubarb” raids over the Low Countries and France were a revelation. And the A-36 invader was probably the best dive bomber of the war. Marrying a Merlin engine allowed it to operate at high altitudes, and that allowed it to be an outstanding escort fighter.
    2
  13.  @kitbag9033 That sounds about correct.
    2
  14. Given how terrible the British economy was in the 1960s; was scrapping this really any big mistake?
    2
  15. Nope both the Spitfire and Hurricane shot down bombers and shot down fighters. It was only some operations by 12 group towards the end of the battle where Hurricanes took on bombers. The Hurricane shot down more because many more of them were built and pressed into service.
    2
  16.  @m0rvidusm0rvidus18  Given that the Hurricane was designed to meet outdated ideas about aerial combat and had design practices and features inherited from earlier Hawker fighters, which were being superseded by more modern techniques; it was already at least obsolescent when the battle began. But the fact is that the Hurricane was cheaper to build, easier to learn how to fly, and the Spitfire still had many teething issues when the war broke out. And the Hurricane could compete with the Bf 109E.
    2
  17.  @FoundAndExplained Sir Keith Park wasn’t a pilot. He was an air Marshall. Clearly you’re just another ignorant Australian nationalist. Do you think this one Hughes guy was the only RAF ace of the Battle of Britain or Something? Ever heard of Gysbert Malan? Or Peter Townsend? Archie McKellar? Colin Gray? Brian Carbury? Eric Lock?
    2
  18. Clearly this video was made by an Australian. Has he also made a video about how Australia also single handedly won the first world war with the Amiens offensive (as a lot Australians have been brainwashed to believe)?
    2
  19. Ironically; the Reich air ministry rejected the Heinkel He 112 fighter, also with elliptical wings, which had much more endurance than a Bf 109 did.
    1
  20. The Hurricane shot down most aircraft full stop, both bombers and fighters. Because there were three times as many Hurricanes in service at any one time.
    1
  21. The Hurricane got more kills because many more of them were built and served during the battle. Because they were cheaper to produce, and required less training for pilots to master. It’s total BS that the Hurricane got more kills because it focussed on bombers. That was just the “big wing” strategy that emerged towards the end of the battle, and only in 12 group. 11 group units got scrambled and vectored on to anything the radars picked up, regardless of what they flew. And 11 group did much more of the fighting than 12 group.
    1
  22.  @datcheesecakeboi6745 The FW 190 didn’t enter service until long after the Battle of Britain was over.
    1
  23.  @phillipanderson9925 No. What he said is fair enough. The title of this video is crass nationalism.
    1
  24.  @phillipanderson9925 No. The title of this video is an insult and a disgrace. The uploader and several commenters seem to think it’s funny. And you are a country that generally lacks class and decorum. Your replies to me are also indicative of that.
    1
  25.  @phillipanderson9925 And this video generalised the entire battle being saved by Australia. What goes around comes around, bogan.
    1
  26. Junkers is abbreviated as “yu” in German, becuase Karl Junkers’ surname was pronounced in English phonetically as “yoonkers”. Not as “ju”…
    1
  27.  @quirkybeachbum Go and look at the numbers and then come back.
    1
  28. I wouldn’t spend $5 on that trinket.
    1
  29. ⁠ @FoundAndExplained It is laughable to even imagine that flight lieutenant Paterson Hughes, or Australia, “saved the Battle of Britain”. So many of you Australians are like primary school children.
    1
  30.  @colinwarner6487 New Zealand doesn’t have any jet fighter aircraft because they would be a complete waste of money for New Zealand. New Zealand is 2000km away from anywhere, it is immune from aerial attack from any nations except the USA and (at a big stretch) Australia,
    1
  31. In case you didn’t notice: Different airframe? Aw yeah…
    1
  32.  @rowanshole I trust that this is sarcasm?
    1
  33. It’s probably a piece of crap. If you want a good watch that isn’t some expensive rolex; get a military watch like a marathon watch or one of those British Cabot watches, etc.
    1
  34. That’s more than a smidgen of an understatement. It’s not merely taking it to far, it’s an outrageous insult.
    1
  35. @user-nz7qr8je6sThan Australians did, yes.
    1
  36. I know, it’s an absolute disgrace. And it says even more about an element of their society in that some comments in here even celebrate this title. Or they come out with some whataboutism of how many Americans claim they won the war, as thigh that makes it all acceptable.
    1
  37.  @colinwarner6487 Oh okay whataboutism. It makes it okay now. So childish.
    1
  38. Oh okay believe your own fantasy. Why do so many of you Australians fail to ever grow up?
    1
  39.  @davewright8206 Was a very flawed and risky concept that Leigh-Mallory in 12 group could only do becuase he wasn’t under the constant short-notice strain that Park in 11 group was.
    1
  40.  @davewright8206 Nope big wing had its chance. On many occasions it was this big success that caused big German losses and lost few British planes and pilots. On many other occasions it was a complete waste of time, failing to find or catch the German formation or failing to successfully form its formation. But overall it simply wasn’t a good strategy for Park’s 11 group. They simply didn’t have the time to assemble a formation like Leigh-Mallory’s 12 group had. And they couldn’t pick and chose formations to send a “big wing” after; they had to try and break up as many German formations as they could, and they didn’t have forewarning.
    1
  41. I don’t think this ignorant bogan has a clue about anything much. His mispronunciations are hard on the ears. There were also three times as many Cannucks as Australians…
    1
  42.  @davidearea242 You can’t collect welfare in Australia unless you are an Australian citizen. Thanks for showing up what clueless and ignorant losers a lot of Australians are….
    1
  43.  @colinwarner6487 Is that why you Australians are always rooting them then?
    1
  44. You forgot the cannucks. There were over 90 of them, 3x more than there were Australians. And there were only 3 Americans.
    1
  45. Australia contributed less than Canada and New Zealand did. And possibly also South Africa.
    1
  46.  @Gattobuono  Nope it’s just ignorance and narrow-mindedness.
    1
  47.  @colinwarner6487 You mean those three were the only one’s in that 30 (which was far fewer than the number of Kiwis and Canucks who were there).
    1
  48.  @davidh6300  MiG-3 Yak-3 Ki-84 C.205
    1
  49.  @MostlyPennyCat  Early model Spitfires tail’s look lame. And the Spitfire got progressively uglier over the course of the war. The ones with clipped wings were especially eyesores. The MiG-3 was THE most beautiful aircraft. The C.202/C.205 comes a close second.
    1
  50.  @MostlyPennyCat What are you guffing about now? Concorde was not a good looking aircraft at all! Especially when its nose was dipped. Next you’ll be telling me the BAC lightning was a good looking aircraft…
    1