Comments by "Caseytify" (@Caseytify) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1. No, the Buffalo would still be a second rate aircraft, alas, with only its cold weather performance in Finland to redeem it. I would be hesitant to make claims about which plane was better, no matter which two you're comparing. AAF pilots, for the most part, didn't know how to fight the Zero effectively. A pity; the P-40 was always the bridesmaid, never the bride. It fought under the shadow of the P-38, P-47, and P-51, not to mention many excellent Navy designs. An unappreciated aircraft.
    2
  2. Proof positive that with enough thrust you can make a brick fly!
    2
  3. Reminds me of the Martin Maryland/Baltimore, while the top view looks like a Bf 110. The A-20 had a similar narrow fuselage. I still can't believe Handley Page produced, and the RAF paid for a biplane in 1934. That's just one year before the Boeing Model 299 flew!
    2
  4. Not the Italians & Americans. The SS.4 flew & crashed March 1939. The XP-55 didn't fly until July 1943. If they really were copying off the Italians it wouldn't have taken 4 years to create a working example.
    2
  5. The US already had an advanced fighter industry. Rocketry, not so much.
    2
  6. I was always confused as a kid between the A-26 (Invader) and the B-26 (Marauder) , especially when the Invader was later named the B-26 and the Marauder was dropped. The Invader can be seen as the follow on to the A-20 Havoc.
    2
  7. 😄😄😄😆😆😆😂😂😂
    2
  8. It's a pity they didn't keep one for the USAF Museum in Dayton.
    2
  9. The problem is that both the A-10 and the Su 25 have only been successful in permissive environments. The A-10 was designed to fight Soviet forces in Europe, but never did. In fact the USAF hasn't fought a near peer opponent since the Vietnam war. They've enjoyed air supremacy for over 40 years. The DoD has been trying to find CAS design that can survive a less permissive environment, but all the fans can do is pound their chests and chant "Warthog!! Warthog!!" I suspect drones will prove effective.
    2
  10. No, Germany has gone full wussy. The readiness rate of their armed forces laughable. The country has gone full pacifist and in effect has disarmed itself. That's not an ally, but a vassal state. The sad thing is Russian army is the smallest in over a century. They've probably massed their entire effective strength along the border. There's also questions as to how long they can conduct warfare without wrecking their economy, which is already in shambles.
    2
  11. The author ignores the attrition losses of Japanese aviators, especially naval fliers. At the start of the war the IJN had probably the finest set of aviators in the world. This was due to the intensive training & selection candidates underwent. To put it in context, Imperial Navy aviators went through the equivalent of US Navy SEAL training. The result are incomparable fighters, but the output is strictly limited. Around 1942 or 43 some lower level IJN officers suggested a greater pilot training program to produce up to 5,000 pilots a year. This was met with the same incredulity of FDR's call for 50,000 aircraft to be built. Many historians mention the crippling loss of veteran IJN pilots during Midway, but fewer discuss the equally crippling loss of veteran maintenance crews. Japan entered a vicious circle of self-destruction from which it never escaped. ... Nothing on the Mark VIII, but it faced a tremendously different Japanese set of aviators in terms of training & experience, not to mention ground crews.
    1
  12. Looks like a Gnat .
    1
  13. Variable sweep designs turned out to be complex, expensive, and eventually not used. The Americans developed the F-111 and the F-14, while Europe developed the Tornado. All of these are out of production and out of service, except for a few Iranian Tomcats. That's all you need to know about variable sweep fighters.
    1
  14. That is one weird airplane...
    1
  15. So good they discontinued it and never flew a variable sweep design again.
    1
  16. For every beautiful design like the Spitfire, Britain came up with a truly ugly one, like the S.B.3, or the Gannet.
    1
  17. Aaaand the two highest scoring American aces in WW2 both flew the Lighting. The P-38 was removed from Europe because it was much more expensive to make & maintain. It had nothing to do with performance. The P-38 dominated in the Pacific for the entire war. As for Galland's comment, does that reflect on the P-38, or on Galland's skill? The man had 104 victories. The P-38 had several issues, but your comment touches on none of them.
    1
  18. That's ok. You take the 109; I'll take a P-38L or P-47D. 😄
    1
  19. Never knew about the B-24N, and that's saying something! I've read a fair number of histories that say the Forts were easier to fly in formation in terms of physical effort on the part of the pilots. Sounds like the twin tail had something to do with that. I would suggest the Liberator didn't get as much publicity because more were sent to North Africa & the Pacific, just like the P-38. The ETO got most of the publicity, hence the Forts were better known. The Liberator had better load capacity, and greater range, which is one reason they were preferred in the Pacific, especially range. Did the production numbers quoted include tankers & cargo variants? I assume the Privateers were counted separately. It's a pity it took Consolidated took so long to develop the N. Probably didn't have resources, being dedicated to manufacturing Liberators & Catalinas. By 1945 even the N was obsolete; the Superforts were good enough, and we had the really big stick with the B-36.
    1
  20. To me the F-4 will always be associated with the P-38. Big, twin-engined, complex, and powerful. The Lightning pioneered many of the missions flown today. The main reason the P-38 was phased out of service was the cost of maintenance. The P-51 far less per hour to maintain & fly, even if the P-38L was a monster of an aircraft. I suspect that's one of the unspoken reasons the F-4 upgrade program died. Even after all the enhancements the Phantom II was an older airframe with higher maintenance costs, compared to the newer aircraft coming into service.
    1
  21. That's assuming these crates can actually hit the boats in the first place. Do you think the Navy was not adjusting to circumstances?
    1
  22.  @nunyabidniz2868  Blame everything on Hitler...
    1
  23.  @Lord.Kiltridge  The P-38 wasn't designed as a heavy fighter per se . It was designed as a high altitude interceptor & bomber killer. It had an unbelievable climb rate, and the armament concentrated in the nose was devastating. Thank God Germany didn't have something like the P-38.
    1
  24. It's worth noting that all modern US Navy designs used radial engines, as did all modern USAAF bombers. The P-51 was the last in-line design accepted by the AAF, and even the RAF was migrating to radial engines on later designs... Actually it's interesting how much the availability of a good engine, or lack thereof, had such a strong effect on airframe design. I've lost count of the designs Ed has talked about that eventually were discontinued due to the lack of a suitable power plant. That's one area Britain & the United States led the way. Britain produced what were arguably some of the finest in-line engines ever made, and were a world leader in jet engine design. The United States made the best radials in the world. That's a powerful advantage.
    1
  25. usually this type of balloon uses helium.
    1
  26. The P-38 Lightning flew faster & farther a couple months before that. By coincidence, it also crashed. Fortunately the USAAC had greater foresight.
    1
  27.  @hachwarwickshire292  LOL.
    1
  28.  @JosipRadnik1  fear the goatee!
    1
  29. The North African invasion diverted a large number of fighter & bomber groups from the 8th AF. That's where the Lightnings went. Also, the USAAF had terrible twin engine training. Compressibility was fixed with speed brakes (distinct from Fowler maneuvering flaps, thank you), as was the roll issue, when they added hydraulic boosting. Basically the J model was a beast, but by the time that had been developed, about half the P-38s made were pre-J models. Also by that time Mustang production was in full swing, so the P-38s went to North Africa & the Pacific, while the 8th AF got P-51s. 9th AF (IIRC) got the P-47. To paraphrase Martin Caidin, the German ace sees the Lightning as easy meat after he's shot down a half dozen of them. A Brit pilot sees the Bf 110 as an easy kill for the same reason. Is that the machine, or the man? A late model Lightning didn't have to worry about compressibility, roll rate, and had excellent maneuverability with intelligent use of the Fowler flaps. They never did put a decent heater in that plane, and the Allisons were a constant PITA.
    1
  30. Is it just me, or does that look like a German Mustang?
    1
  31. Yes, it's been my understanding that Bell removed the supercharger due to USAAC request.
    1
  32. I don't think so. Even twin 50s would chew these suckers up. 20 mm? Forget about it. That's assuming the newbie pilots could even get these crates off the ground without killing themselves.
    1
  33. It's most likely helium.
    1
  34. They lack the culture of diligence that is required when operating Western aircraft. The Russian stuff is more forgiving. This is mostly a huge PR stunt for the Taliban, to convince their Western supporters the struggle continues.
    1
  35.  @rob5944  {yawn} It's sad that someone feels the need to drag out a single statistic and proclaim superiority.
    1
  36.  @martijn9568  uhhh, no.
    1
  37. re: the first Scimitar fatality. The machine didn't have an ejection seat? I expected him to punch out when the cable broke. I've seen more than a few landing videos where just that happened.
    1
  38. The Tomcat was designed primarily as an interceptor.
    1
  39. I expect the Germans would have found this very useful during the Battle of Britain.
    1
  40. Excellent point about munition stocks. One wonders if NATO suppliers are ramping up production, and how long that would take.
    1
  41. The B-25 strafer and the A-1 Skyraider showed us how to do it right. ... I gotta admit the Soviets really liked the Airacobra & King Cobra.
    1
  42. One wonders how well these would fare against M48s or M60s? I hear the latter has a nice kit upgrade...
    1
  43. ... Aaaaand when did the last guns kill happen, again? Missiles did eventually become that deadly. It just took longer than expected. The Sidewinder origin story still cracks me up.
    1
  44. Germany didn't have an economy to build heavy bombers in addition to other forces. Also note that strategic bombing is by nature a long term process. Germany could not survive a long war. ... What people frequently ignore in "what if" scenarios (in this case, what if there were German heavy bombers for the Battle of Britain) is that Germany lacked adequate naval resources to successfully invade Great Britain. The invasion needed three solid legs to succeed: sea, air, and land. Germany lacked enough offensive naval units to defend & protect beachheads, effective naval transport, and nearly any logistical transport to feed an invading force landed in Britain. Given no opportunity for the heavy bomber force to gain proficiency (remember: short campaigns), the result in Britain would be many missed targets and a lack of useful bomb damage analysis.
    1
  45. The cockpit of the Demon reminds me of the Corsair.
    1
  46. It's still redundant given the Skyraider & Mauler. In fact I doubt the Mauler would have gone into production. Building a great variety of designs is inefficient.
    1
  47. They could have saved weight & complexity by doing something about that hideous landing gear!
    1
  48. I didn't know Harris was a mine fan. Interesting. Mines use in Europe was limited to riverine traffic. Most of the targets were on land. The strategic bomber offensive is still debated because everyone uses different metrics, and ignores important parts of history. I suspect King didn't spare much attention for mines since they were a very small part of global operations. In the Pacific the main thrust was multiple amphibious invasions & CAS. In the Atlantic it was convoy duty and (again) support for amphibious invasions. Mining was very effective on Japanese home water shipping. It's a good thing the Germans didn't have the same success against Great Britain. IIRC the US results were classified until the 1970s. If memory serves mining was also more successful than submarine operations against shipping.
    1
  49. "If the program had been properly managed from the start..." Welcome to the wonderful world of corruption & incompetence. India has run into these issues repeatedly, resulting in designs that were over budget & underperforming, if they were finished at all.
    1
  50. So it's like the kids who glue various bits of different Star Trek models together to create a new class?
    1