Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1. Indeed. From the mid' 1930's until about 1994... damn impressive for any aircraft lineage. That; and the Manchester line also spawned the Lancastrian, a seperate spinoff aircraft, and the Lanc' / Linc' were the first British aircraft of their size to test turboprop's & straight up jet engines.
    10
  2. ​ @MsJoao101  In retrospect it could be said that fighting soviet-backed guerillas wasn't useless, especially as every nation in Africa that fell to USSR backed insurgents ended up far worse off than before 🤔 .
    7
  3. Aye. The Spey engined Phantoms famously always frustrated US Carrier crews on joint exercises, as they didn't have the same kind of jetblast deflectors nor strengthened decks as the FAA did, thus the Spey engined Phantoms melted / set fires on the decks of US Carriers they landed & took off from 😂 .
    7
  4. Porsche infamously tried to produce Petrol-Electric AFV's in the 1940's... failing completely. The resulting Tiger IP was even more unreliable than the Henschel offering, and its convoluted drivetrain used a slew of strategic materials Germany had little of the time (such as Copper). Even the Germans realized Ferdinand Porsche was pushing a lemon, and rejected the Tiger IP flat. "The more they complicate the plumbing; the easier it is to stop up the drain." - Scotty
    6
  5. I'm an '80's kid, yet have favourites from all over the Cold War era 😂 . The SAAB Draken for example; always struck me as the unsolicited lovechild of a MIG-21 and Concord with a pinch of Angel Interceptor from Captain Scarlet 😂
    6
  6. @MsJoao101  I would argue that with more cooperation from other nations such as the UK & USA, Portugal could have pulled off a phased withdrawal akin to what the British managed in Kenya, Malaya & elsewhere, ensuring stable - and non-Communist aligned - successor regimes in their former colonies. As it was it seems no other western nation offered Portugal such an incentive to seek a managed withdrawal, which with postwar uncertainties re' trade and the Soviets exporting unrest globally I'd say Portugal adopting a seige mentality is understandable. That; and technically we know from the example of South-Africa during the Cold War, that even tacit support from the UK & US was enough to keep the Soviet backed insurgents at bay, meaning Portugal could have kept its colonies, had the US decided it a better option than the USSR getting them by default. (the US's hostility to other western countries having imperial territories postwar resulted in various countries worldwide falling to Soviet backed / otherwise anti-western regimes) As it is we need only look to the Middle East & Indies for examples of a colonial power leaving abruptly without a proper plan results in; endless local wars between factions, and far more bloodshed than most managed withdrawals.
    4
  7. ^ TDS much? 😂
    4
  8.  @atlascheethac7869  Pretty much. I spoke with a veteran from the South African Army once; he confirmed that the Shackleton was a much loved asset, albeit one they had to retire early as sanctions made sourcing spare parts almost impossible.
    4
  9. @LEESS1005  Well put. Nobody knew it at the time, but the troubled Manchester probably had the most family of any aircraft 🤔 Always have thought it fascinating how Avro went from aircraft like the Lancaster to the spaceship like Vulcan in only a few years. Makes one ponder the various directions that could have led had the UK taken the US's recommendation at the time that we sustain a Twin Prong approach (Sub's with strategic missiles & Bombers with standoff missiles also; to complicate any Soviet efforts toward a first strike) It also means the Lancaster has a connection to the Avro Ashton; the final derivation of the Tudor, and a promising could-have-been short haul jet airliner, in other circumstances 🤔 .
    4
  10. More like over 90 years, if counting attempts prior to & during WWII. (re' hybrid drive-trains) Autoloaders have A place it could be argued (though more as an augment to a crewman than a replacement), but I'd say a greater innovation would be Liquid Propellants, as a Tank with the latter would have quicker load times, and no need for a heavy ammo' compartment for propellant charges, as the propellant would be instead in two seperate storage tanks, coming together only in the gun breech. Not to mention: keeping the charges and projectiles seperate from each other until loaded into the gun is the most reliable way to prevent cookoff in the first place / give the crew the most time possible to put out or escape from an onboard fire.
    3
  11. Rhinemetal can push their 130mm all they like: it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. As it is this's happened before; the USSR fielded the T-62 with a then all new gun caliber... only to look rather daft as munitions upgrades to the older 100mm D10 gun rendered the T-62's gun irrelevant. As it is guns above 120 to 122mm caliber are impractical for use in Tanks, due to the munitions weighing too much. Unless there's some breakthrough in Liquid Propellants (which would render 1 peice tank ammo' obsolete), guns larger than 120mm are a practical dead end.
    3
  12. Yup. Stryker is useless against an actual MBT, in surrvivability and even mobility. (even the vehicle that preceded it had better mobility) P.S. If you want people to laugh you to scorn; try telling them a Stryker MGS can match a MBT in cross country mobility, surrvivability... or even a short span of it's greatest enemy... Mud or a Side Slope! (to say nothing of the hopeless lemon being unable to fire side on without flipping the vehicle) Clearly the boyo below thinks he can #ROFL
    3
  13. As the FT-17 was comically undergunned and prone to tipping over... that might be a bit unfair on '80's Tanks ;-) . The M60A2 of the '70's though, was derisively nicknamed "The Starship" in its day (by the crews), for having been designed by people who knew nothing of on the ground operational reality. (the convoluted electronics for instance often didn't work, and when they did they'd short out, as they weren't even water resistant... a tad inconveniant when being used in wet &/or humid climates) Time will tell I think whether this will become something successful, like M60A3, or just another "Starship".
    3
  14. ​@mpetersen6 Kind of. Steam Traction was more of a combo of relative manpower & speed of availability issues. (it took much longer & more people to cold start a Steam Locomotive than a D/E or D/H... though electric preheaters did reduce this gap a fair bit) In reliability the Steamies had a clear advantage, taking much more abuse for them to break down than contemporary Diesel-Electric's, and being far more effective in extremes of weather.
    3
  15. ...and keeping up on underside protection from IED's & Landmines is rather important too.
    3
  16. Aye. We have only the government to blame for this. That said, the Tornado and Typhoon were basically British aircraft with foreign backing & assembly assistance. The Jaguar (mostly french) and Harrier II (50/50 with the USA) are counter-examples though.
    3
  17. @user-qq2vq4fv8b  I was referring to the Tudor, which is a direct relation to the York, but far less successful in service, primarily due to the shenanigans of primary customer BOAC, and the fact that she was only supposed to be a short to medium placeholder for a more advanced aircraft. Ironically the final iteration of the Tudor, the Ashton, was very innovative, and might have seen commercial success had events played out differently 🤔
    3
  18. A criminally underrated aircraft IMO. Ironically the Shackleton - in some ways a shortened Lincoln - proved much more could be squeezed from the airframe, with her four RR Griffon engines turning contra-rotating propellers, complimented with two Viper turbojets. Russia's postwar Tupolev Bear, certainly suggests that the Lincoln could have been developed further, in a more useful way than the Boeing Washingtons we had for a relativy short time, and - to the best of my knowledge - never carried nukes, which is what they were theoretically for.
    3
  19. 4:34 ...and all hope for this Tank being a serious successor [in of itself] just evaporated -_- . As past failures like the T95 and MBT-70 should illustrate rather well; Rolling Science Fairs pretty much never result in production orders. I'd only feel sorry for the crews of this thing, as while most of the features mentioned prior looked somewhat promising; putting 3 crewmen in a Tank which they not only can't make internal repairs to while in action (getting out whilst in an active battle area is suicide), but also lack an ability to fight in Degraded Mode at all... well they're doomed against an opponent that's not so handicapped. The US would also do well to avoid "hybrid drivetrains". Those are largely the reserve of Trains and Ships for good reason. (being heavy, complex & fragile being just the main limitations) "Keep it simple, stupid!" - age old military proverb
    3
  20. Ironically Tesco has never had an s in their name; customers just keep adding one 😂 . (even Wallace in A Grand Day Out does)
    2
  21. Aye; this's what some call a Rolling Science Fair . Army top brass tend to be allergic to such things, thus they either get rejected or heavily watered down.
    2
  22. T'was mainly metal fatigue from misuse, though lesser issues were also found. Pretty much inevitable that other issues were found though, as all aircraft have issues when new.
    2
  23. ^ And? The Russians are getting their arses handed to them by a 3rd world country ATM. Clearly their approach hasn't worked XD . That: and the record for longest range 1 shot Tank kill in history... is still held by a 120mm gun. (though one could perhaps argue that naval guns have killed Tanks from further away, but a 16" battleship gun is perhaps a tad impractical on land XD)
    2
  24. Aye; and if they make only a few, the unit price will be even higher.
    2
  25. I doubt crews will agree. Bigger isn't always better, as the allies conclusively proved during WWII, with the Germans losing territory on the western front every day between D Day & VE Day, to generally lighter armed but more numerous, reliable & servicable armour.
    2
  26. ^×2 This comment was evidently made by someone without a valid counter-statement; rather only lame ad homeniem. #EpicFail Try tackling the subject next time boyo :P
    2
  27.  @MrLobstermeat  Fair enough. I was referring to the other guy.
    2
  28. ""obsolete"" vs what?. The Russians & Chinese Tanks are of the same generations, and by all observable measures objectively worse. (and in the case of Russia, they dither from one failure to another) It's like the postwar situation Battleships faced: the Soviets had given up on building any new ones (as Germany had wrecked their shipbuilding facilities), mooting any reason for the west to, as there was no threat country building anything bigger than a cruiser. Also: there is no "Chally 3" (in reality anyway, as it's just old CR2 hulls with a hyperbolic name), as the UK Government gave up on developing new Tanks back in 2003... and the company that'd tried to keep Tank R&D going (Vickers Defence Systems) was bought out and divested by BAe, a company with no real interest nor experiance in Tanks. In all meaningful terms; an actual CR3 (an newbuild Tank from the ground up) will never happen... which is sad, but an all too familiar case of UK Governmental ineptitude re' defence.
    2
  29. "current MBT's can't withstand anything serious" Define "serious", as that's a meaningless statement. What isn't; is that the British Army lost 0 Tanks in either Gulf War to enemy action, despite various heated actions, such as the Battle of Basra in 2003. The MBT is the most surrvivable asset on the modern battlefield, both because of her own merits, but also because of Combined Arms.
    2
  30. Just like during WWII really. The gov' - at least for a time - decided a triad of Jet Bombers would be most likely to produce a winner, while also providing the visible strategic deterrent of a nuclear hammer blow against the USSR.
    2
  31. More like Grandfather, as the BAe EAP preceded the Typhoon.
    2
  32. Time will tell. Such trend predictions have been disproven time after time over the last century.
    2
  33. ^ Nah. All three were lookers.
    2
  34. "Most outdated modern tank" doubt (seriously: have you seen some of the stuff other countries use? ... makes the Abrams look like a starship XD) Definite room for improvement though (to put it mildly) ... but far better things to consider adopting than autoloaders. (a ADS for instance, or all electric turret drives)
    2
  35. Too much power is possible actually; as shown by various Tanks whos transmissions couldn't / can't make any use thereof. Even when the latter can though, it's not so simple. The British Army found with the A27M Cromwell in the '40's and the Challenger 2 in the 00's, that more than 40mph in a Tank just leads to the Tank shaking herself apart, because of Square Cube Law. (the CR2 that they tested upping the power on in the 00's, tore various external fittings off herself in the process, and just confirmed that for the weight of vehicle, there was no worthwhile point in trying to go faster than 40mph) To go faster than that: add lightness... which has its own series of engineering trade offs
    2
  36. Three Words: Square Cube Law
    1
  37. In beauty terms, going from 100,000ft to 80,000ft isn't reason to drop the undercarriage just yet 🤔😉
    1
  38. A Tank with ""silent mode""... That's not how Physics Works!
    1
  39.  @stevetournay6103  "All the more for us, and not a Sheep to worry us, huhu."
    1
  40. The Washingtons' - basically reheated B29's - ironically were older than the Lincolns the RAF already had, weren't particularly useful as the RAF didn't yet have any nukes for the aircraft to drop, and weren't followed up by any other US strategic bomber purchase... and they had zero parts compatibility with anything else incthe RAF's hands at the time. The Washington's were it seems a political pick, rather than just asking Avro to produce a more advanced Lincoln variant with Griffin engines and no guns for high altitude work 🤦‍♂️ . Keep in mind; the Lancaster carried more bombload than the B17 (and faster) and the B29 during the war, and was considered for dropping the nukes on Japan in 1945 (as the B29's had initial bombbay fit issues [among many problems unrelated to that]).
    1
  41. The nearest equivalent aircraft the USA had to the British Bristol Brabazon 🤔😌👌 . (though in ironic symmetry, the latter started as a civilian airliner, that then got pitched to the RAF as a long range transport)
    1
  42.  @Galvars  Well put. The missile lobby have repeatedly tried & failed to push such "hurr durr guns are old hat!" gubbuck for over seven decades now XD
    1
  43.  @Galvars  ...as for your other comment... nope; the current record was set by the Royal Ordinance L11A5 gun of Challenger I, in 1991 during Operation Granby. And as for my point: simple really; Soviet Tanks have always performed far worse than expected by western analysts, and always fared poorly pound for pound against western Tanks. (look up for instance how many Syrian T-62's were slaughtered on the Golan Heights, by a handful of battle worn Israeli Centurions) There is no need for a Tank Gun above 120mm, and nothing to suggest there will be anytime soon.
    1
  44. Looks like the unsolicited lovechild of the Short Sperrin and de Havilland Sea Vixen 😂 (despite predating both)
    1
  45. Probably because - like the Russians - their politicians at least vaguely understand the value of a multi-prong nuclear deterrent. We Brit's lost ours (strategically) in 1969 & (tactically) in 1998 🤦‍♂️ .
    1
  46. ^ Don't listen to this ""D G"" guy (or his various sock puppet accounts). Tank Guns larger than 120mm will definitely not be going anywhere. (not in the west anyway; the ex-soviet block is riddled with ridicuous gun calibers; most of which as subpar as the vehicles that have them) If you want a bigger gun buy a SPG. If you want 1 part ammo' for a gun bigger than 120mm... you're a logistician's worst enemy.
    1
  47. The OP is right. Far too often are such ridiculous assumptions made upon the course of Aerospace development (contradictory facts or theories be damned), and almost always it's assumptions asserted by Politicians (and the equally daft / responsibility denying Civil Service), who know nothing about aerospace at all. This was true on both sides of the Iron Curtain though, with Russian aerospace being even more ridden with such absurdity.
    1
  48. What killed the aerospace industry was basically a plethora of asinine political decisions that both mismanaged the wider economy of the day, while also - largely due to short-sighted/tribalist sweeping conclusions such as Duncan Sandy's with his infamous white paper - cutting the number of orders to a dribble, cancelling basically every exportable project, failing to support the industry's efforts to sell aircraft and engines abroad, while also running down the airforce with inadequate attention to upgrades and generally practical options for extending/ optimising the aircraft's effectiveness. Whether it'd happened in the late-1950's or late-1940's, thr Ministry of Supply's asinine plan to force-merge aircraft companies with largely incompatible and spread out facilities was never going to work, anymore than government mergers with the railway, shipbuilding or car industries did anything but make existing problems worse while creating countless more🤦‍♂️ . Britain's postwar decline was/is entirely the fault of the government and its civil service. This can be determined swiftly by even a cursorary tracing of effect to cause.
    1
  49. ​@michaelbender5600 Yeah~ a mistake Russia payed dearly for 😂 . 🇯🇵🇬🇧 > 🇷🇺🇫🇷
    1
  50. Purely a cost of moving issue. There's no shortage of museums that wouldn't want one, and private collectors that wouldn't want a peice of one.
    1