Comments by "Mike Armstrong" (@mikearmstrong8483) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1.  @GoldMoonGuy  If you mean some sort of armored powered exoskeleton type thing, it's not going to happen except in video games. Because the only way to resist the guns already in use is to put on so much armor that you need a large tracked chassis to carry the weight. If something like those mech suits from Avatar tried to get on a battlefield today, a platoon of Abrams would blow the actual almighty ** out of them.
    3
  2.  @GoldMoonGuy  I thought you were serious because there are some limited circumstances where such gear would be better than a tank, and because they are already under development.
    3
  3. Rear gunner: Hey, can you pass a message to the pilot for me? Navigator: Just call him on the phone. Rear gunner: I can't; the guy downstairs is tying up the line. Navigator: Well then, use the semaphore system. Rear gunner: Your bean poles are blocking the line of sight. Navigator: Well, did you just want carrots with dinner all week?
    3
  4. There have been many dubious incidents of kills awarded. A US F-111 pilot in the Gulf War was credited with a kill on an Iraqi MiG-29 just because he flew so low trying to get away that it crashed on its own trying to get him. There has never been any formal criteria established for what constitutes an air-to'air "kill", although killing the enemy pilot or crew, or causing them to abandon the aircraft (usually by bailing out), or forcing the enemy aircraft to land, is generally considered to be a legitimate kill. This one is really pushing the definition.
    3
  5. The Bell P59 Airacomet. But it didn't see combat service; it was armed but then only used for training. Just after it came the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, which was deployed to Italy before WWII ended, but also didn't see combat until Korea, so it sort of qualifies.
    3
  6. Oh, come on. This thing looks like Bugs Bunny should be flying it, and Elmer Fudd chasing him in a P-26 Peashooter.
    3
  7. Hawker thought the idea of a floatplane Hurricane dubious? And yet they were willing to try out a Hurricane with a jettisonable 2nd wing. Got to wonder about the thought processes there.
    3
  8. Videos out of Ukraine cannot be trusted to provide any useful analysis of the situation. They are all edited to show whatever point the producer wants to make depending on their own political affiliation. As an example, I saw a widely distributed video showing a Ukranian missile crew ambushing a Russian tank, with the latter stopping dead and pouring out smoke, presumably a good kill. The point being made that missiles are the ultimate silver bullet, Ukranians are bad ass, blah, blah, blah. I have since seen a longer unedited version of the same video that shows the same damaged tank immediately starting up again and moving away from the kill zone, while the rest of the column deploys in seconds and starts pouring accurate fire into the missile crew's position.
    3
  9. A couple of things I wonder about British logic. 1) Recognizing in advance that the aircraft would be a failure, they continued production so as not to hold up the production line. Wait, what? Knowing you are building something you don't want, you keep building it because you don't want to stop the line that is building it? Da faaq? 2) Such a loser that it ends up as a static AA gun with the engine removed. ???? Why remove the engine? What were they going to do; put it in some other plane? It sucked. It was too weak to power a plane, so why not leave it in an airframe that was useless anyway? If they were going to commit the manpower to remove a major component of the plane, then why not remove the turret and set it on a frame or little trailer to use as an AA mount, and scrap the plane for recycling during a time of acute metal shortage?
    3
  10.  @k3D4rsi554maq  I get the feeling that the Poles would disagree with you on that. They didn't seem to think the invasion and defeat of their country was phony. Nor did the tens of thousands of Germans (and a few hundred Russians) who were casualties in that campaign.
    2
  11.  @DocTommy1972  Very heavily. (I'm not going to admit that was probably the worst pun (and being a pun, that means the best) that I have ever seen on YouTube.)
    2
  12.  @TheAnxiousAardvark  The Winter War only saw Soviets invading Finland, but both France & Britain promised and planned intervention on Finland's part, so why doesn't that push the start of WWII back to 1938? The Sino-Japanese war continued until the Japanese surrender in 1945, and included the participation of US & UK forces, so why doesn't that push the start of WWII back to 1937? Some historians say it does. The Spanish Civil War featured 3 of the major powers of Europe, all belligerents during WWII, fighting each other, so why doesn't that push the start of WWII back to 1936? The Italian invasion of Ethiopia started conflict in East Africa that eventually involved UK forces, with fighting that continued until 1942, so why doesn't that push the start of WWII back to 1935? The reason Sept 1st 1939 is generally considered the start is because that is when Germany invaded Poland, which drew in Britain and France, and shortly after that the Soviet Union, so people think of that as a world war because 4 of the major powers were at war with each other. A very Euro-centric, if not outright condescending attitude if you ask me; does the invasion of little countries with less than 10 million people mean nothing? Does the killing of Asians mean nothing? Even if these conflicts involved some of the same belligerents who were still fighting each other later, during the period that is "properly" considered the war? As for your acquaintance insisting WWII started only with the beginning of US involvement, there must have been some misunderstanding between you two, because that is ignorance beyond comprehension. Incidentally, I'm his age and also a conservative, but apparently I know history better than him. Did he get his degree by bribing a professor?
    2
  13. Are there not any international laws forbidding the use of the words "French" and "elegant" in the same paragraph, when discussing interwar bombers?
    2
  14.  @razor1uk610  As opposed to "fugly"?
    2
  15. The basic Bell 47 was tested during the Korean war with 2 .30 cal Brownings, not to meet any requirement issued but as a field mod by innovative pilots.
    2
  16. Technically, Washington was not the first president. He was the first to be elected after the constitution was ratified. But there were a few others that served as the president of the Continental Congress, and then president of the independent united colonies, before him.
    2
  17. Correct me if im wrong, but the Vulture was a V-engine, wasn't it?
    2
  18.  @allangibson2408  So I guess that's why it wasn't very successful. Take a bad engine and double it to try to get a good engine. Two wrongs don't make a right (although 14 cylinders do make a Wright).
    2
  19.  @duartesimoes508  Control force inputs on the Su-7 were very taxing on the pilots. I have read that some pilots compared it to flying a Hawker Hunter in manual reversion mode without the hydraulics. It's a good thing it had limited range; pilots would not have been able to withstand flying the thing much longer without serious muscle strain.
    2
  20. Or, perhaps we can hope that it doesn't just stay at that. A warmongering view? I prefer to call it pragmatic. Any conflict for Iran, that causes military casualties and attrition of military hardware, and consumes military oriented resources, win or lose, can only improve the status quo vs the US. Losses to them are a victory for us, even if we are not involved. But we are not at war with Iran, so shouldn't I feel compassionate about loss of life? No. Iranians have shown that they shed no tears over the loss of American lives; often they will even celebrate. They have chosen a belligerent status against us, they have backed terrorist groups that have attacked us, they have made themselves the enemy. So, it is only beneficial to the US if they go to war with someone else. The belligerence and threat to regional peace presented by the Azerbaijanis only makes it better. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Unless the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy, in which case let them wipe each other out while I go look for more reasonable friends.
    2
  21. This thing looks like it should have a reverse gear.
    2
  22. My first inclination was to post a comment about inferior planes being superior in Finnish service, only to find that 14 of you sons-of-biscuits have beaten me to it!
    2
  23. Are cars that different in the UK than in the US? Over here in "the colonies 😁" there is no way you could leave any vehicle and lock the doors to keep people in (police vehicles excepted, of course), only to keep people out.
    2
  24. After seeing so many videos starring Aerosucre, it's refreshing to see any latin American country with an organization called FAA.
    2
  25. Thanks; I wondered about that.
    2
  26.  @prfwrx2497  Well, that brings it to a choice of using a sharp spruce stick or a sharp oak stick. The answer, of course, is both, and sharp cattails if needed. But that still doesn't make it any easier to maintain a supply of sticks.
    2
  27. Probably just as well that they dropped out of NATO, since the French decision making process seems to go something like this: 07:00 Soviets attack western Europe. 07:15 "Let's support NATO." 07:38 "Let's sit this war out." 08:04 "Let's design a new fighter." 10:23 "Let's make it a rocket powered torpedo plane instead." 11:01 "Let's fight the Soviets after all." 11:02 "Our own communist party has started rioting, so let's not fight, and we will put a Ugandan rubber band motor in our new bomber that will be an ornithopter." 11:19 "All aircraft production is to immediately cease until we have had croissants and fig jam." 12:00 "Now that we are through with croissants and jam, it's lunch time." 13:05 "Do we have a design yet for our rocket rubber band torpedo interceptor? Non, Mssr Dassault is upset that a Japanese company is making money building aircraft that have nothing to do with Europe." 13:18 "Mssr Dassault says he will give us 11 new designs as long as we give him half the treasury and none of the designs have to be built." 13:21 "Are we at war or not?" 13:22 "Oui, we have just attacked Iceland, and are about to surrender to the town of Woolsey-on-Thames".
    2
  28. He done didded it again. Another plane I knew about and never expected to see a video about.
    2
  29. Caley, Langley, and Ader all made valiant attempts, which flew about as well as the average Red Bull fleugtag contraption. Lilienthal and Chanute preceded them with gliders, Santos-Dumont and others preceded them with airships, but the Wrights were the first to fly a controllable powered aircraft. Britain, France, Russia, China, and Brazil (and probably North Korea) all claim to have flown first, but not one of them can offer anything other stories about it as proof. Edited because I mistook what you were saying. Yes, there were other heavier-than-air craft before the Wrights. But in general, aviation historians look at powered craft rather than hang gliders. So I guess we are sort of in agreement.
    2
  30. What is the major malfunction with Latinos??? When you fuck up your own country because you want to be a macho idiot dictator that doesn't know jack shit about how to run a government, invading someone else for popularity DOES NOT WORK. The UN needs to send a couple of large representatives to walk into fat boy's office, slap him across the face a few times, and say "Remember Leopoldo Galtieri?".
    2
  31. My first thought would be Fuerza Area Argentina (Argentine Air Force). But I'm weird anyway.
    2
  32. Why waste additional resources and manpower to finish a ship that no longer has a useful role at that point and will never leave the Baltic?
    2
  33. It is a mystery to me why this plane gets so much attention in print and video. There was only one, and it wasn't very spectacular, and it accomplished nothing. Yet it seems to be as fundamental to any examination of WWII aircraft as a B-17 or Bf-109.
    2
  34.  @hugobloemers4425  Yes, I'm aware of the content of this channel. The comment had nothing to do with this channel specifically; it was an observation in regard to this particular aircraft.
    2
  35. That has always been my thought as well. I'm surprised that a designer of Tank's status was not more familiar with the area rule.
    2
  36. "This little beauty......" ??? Do you have vision difficulties? And the comparison was definitely offensive to Thunderbird 2!
    2
  37. Aaaaahhhhh!!!! You have awakened an ancient memory. Now I have part of that tune in my head. What was that from?
    2
  38.  @nonamesplease6288  Yes, they were underpowered, unmaneuverable, and a maintenance headache. But that applied to them everywhere. In response to the original comment about landing them on a beach, I'm just saying it is entirely possible because they wouldn't sink into the sand. How much use they would be after getting 12 yards off the beach would still be in question.
    2
  39.  @Rich77UK  Yeah, because the USA is to blame for every fucking thing since the beginning of recorded history, and of course Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo had nothing to do with it, did they? Dumbass.
    2
  40.  @pushkarajdongre  Alas? He needed 25% more lass? Or are you saying his area rule was to look for a lass in the area?
    2
  41. Fiat G50, Curtiss Hawk, Brewster Buffalo, Morane Saulnier MS406, Gloster Gladiator, Fokker D21, Hawker Hurricane. It seems the Finns had an eccentric passion for excelling at air combat in substandard planes.
    2
  42. 840 hp. You have to replay it and listen close to get around his accent.
    2
  43.  @ThePsiclone  Valid point. I'd forgotten that detail.
    2
  44.  @oldbloke204  Sorry, but no hillbilly here. I'm well educated, well travelled, and well aware that the US is not the center of the universe, as some of my ignorant countrymen believe. But in this case, I'm responding to an earlier comment that the Mirage was what the Hustler "wanted to be". No, it wasn't. Although a maintenance nightmare, the Hustler was much superior in performance and capability to the Mirage, mainly just because of its bigger size.
    2
  45. Pursued by a giant wooden badger flying a Union Jack, with Cunningham leaning out the window and one hand on the steering wheel.
    2
  46. A shame they didn't push the program. Many outstanding aircraft, particularly fighters, started off with crashes during initial testing. Just off memory, the P-38 Lightning, F-14 Tomcat, F-100 Super Saber, and the JA-39 Gripen come to mind, though I know there have been many more. Perseverance pays off. Consider the P-51 Mustang, which was a disappointment that the USAAC didn't want due to its poor performance at the start.
    2
  47.  @noahwail2444  Typing in haste, I chose my words poorly when I said it needed air flow to "operate". I meant to start. The Argus pulse jet required pressurized air forced into the inlet to start combustion, and could not operate without the artificial air flow until a certain temperature had been reached. When you see film of V-1s idling on the ramps, they are warming up with air nozzles blasting pressurized air into the inlets. And you are correct that the small wing area of the V-1 would also necessitate a catapult launch. The Me-328 being larger and heavier, a catapult launch may not have been feasible to obtain minimum flight velocity. An air launch would have provided much better control in a test environment, and with the Mistel program underway, the Germans would have been already familiar with stacking a fighter on top of a bomber.
    2
  48. Having studied aviation development for 50 years, and being quite familiar with a multitude of types most people have never heard of, it amazes me that you can always seem to come up with something that is completely new to me. You are an archival prodigy, sir.
    2
  49. This settles it. There can be no doubt that LSD was created in Britain in the 1920s.
    2
  50. With 4 high velocity 37s it would probably have been the only plane of that era that actually had a realistic chance of hitting a tank with a gun big enough to do damage, at least from the rear. Under ideal test conditions with nonmoving targets and top pilots, it was found that there was only a 7% probability of hitting a tank sized target with a 37mm, which allowing for a 15 round drum magazine meant a single hit at most. Against a moving target, with someone other than a test pilot, facing light flack, in variable weather, an antitank mission relying on guns was almost always a wasted sortie. 20mm guns with higher rates of fire, higher velocities, and more ammo capacity were better for the role, but with almost no chance of armor penetration the best a pilot could hope for was track damage or starting a fire on the rear deck.
    1