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

Under-engined & slow even before the war. The D.520 held much greater promise.
1
@johnassal5838 real world history disagrees with you.
1
@dukecraig2402 what about the melting cylinder heads?
1
@usernamesreprise4068 The 109 would laugh sarcastically, then shoot it down.
1
I like the suggestion of replacing Eastern European countries' Warsaw Pact stores with modern munitions, and sending the old stuff to Ukraine. While offering them older US systems may seem promising, as someone pointed out here there's the metric problem. Right now we should be funding increased production of stuff like Javelins & manpads, as well as funding transfer of Warsaw Pact munitions to Ukraine. Not sure a new Lend-Lease bill is a good idea. One of the motivators of that Act was that it was better to help the Allies with munitions while we became more prepared. Is Biden anticipating becoming a belligerent?
1
As much as I respect the F-35, I don't think it's an optimal choice for Canada. The F-18E or Gripen would be a much better choice. ... The USAF is buying the F-15 XL from Boeing after all? Interesting. An F-35 / F-15XL hi/lo mix might prove a good choice. The F-15XL sounds like a good option for Canada, but it appears there are political obstacles. ... On the other hand, certain cynical predictions may prove correct, in the government will just kick the problem down the road a few years and let someone else deals with it later.
1
Sounds like a very useful & versatile short field supply plane.
1
Weren't the engines less vulnerable to MANPADS as well?
1
More Pallywood. They've learned from their Iranian masters.
1
An excellent video! You covered many of the variables nicely. I would like to expand on some of them. A well maintained craft would perform better than one with a mediocre crew. A well waxed fighter would gain several MPH over the same model with a normal paint job. Also, a light pilot with a low fuel load could give a better performance than the same model with a large pilot and full fuel load. Finally, even given equivalent paint jobs, weight, and size of pilots, two planes that came one after the other from the factor could still show significant variation in performance. For those that take the argument seriously, this is all angels dancing on pins territory. P.S. I'm sure there are good reasons, but why no P-38? According to the sources you used, what was its highest rated speed?
1
First you have to understand & explain the IJN doctrine of air combat. Even experienced Hurricane pilots got chewed up by the Zeros when they tried to use the same tactics used (successfully) against the Luftwaffe. It wouldn't take a dedicated fighter, anyway. Besides maneuvers such as the Thach Weave, all the services in the Pacific developed similar rules. - Keep IAS over 300 mph. The Zero's controls stiffened up at that speed. - Avoid steep climbs where the Zero has the advantage. Stick to shallow high speed climbs. - Avoid turning combat. Thomas McGuire added a couple: - Avoid low altitude combat. - Never fight with your drop tanks still on. Basically the competitive strategy against the Zero was an example of the earliest use of energy concepts; "zoom & boom" was a preferred technique.
1
It's amazing how many "woulda coulda" designs we saw in WW2. Even today engines are a serious consideration for any fighter design. Both the Russians & China still lag far behind western development, and other countries can't even get started.
1
@FranciscoPartidas Ahhh, no.
1
The Streak Eagle hit 98,000 feet.
1
Further reports the balloon at 60,000 feet.
1
I was wondering by 1942 why they just didn't license build A-20s or Beaufighters.
1
I didn't know you could use the words "sleek" and "Gannet" in the same sentence. LOL.
1
Convergent evolution.
1
@dnomyarnostaw Yet no one was developing in-line designs by the end of the war; any internal combustion designs used radial engines.
1
The Army looked at this plane 10 or 15 years ago. They're finally procuring it? Back when they were doing a fly off between what became the T-6 Texan II and the Tucano, the Air Tractor was mentioned.
1
The idiot thought he could run the DoD like a business.
1
Definitely a three-bagger...
1
🙂🙂😄😄😆😆😂😂🤣🤣🤣 Economics: do you speak it!?
1
Um, yeah. Try that against a real air force, like the RAF or USAF.
1
Not a crack on the plane but... It looks like it has the nose of a P-40, the canopy of a tempest, and the tail of a Corsair. 😏
1
They can get accurate data from Google Earth. No need for weather balloons or other frippery.
1
To pick a small nit, Model 299 crashed before the end of the competion, failing to complete the category "utility as a type." Hence it became ineligible. The B-18 won by default. The Fort did have its fans who insisted the B-17 was a better aircraft (which was obvious in those areas it did compete), but... That's when the relative cost reared its ugly head. Model 299 was ineligible, and the B-18 was cheaper. QED. Supporters talked the AAC into buying 13 Y models, but that was it until 1939.
1
Looks like a Corsair tail.
1
 @yes_head smart munitions. Visualize an advanced Switchblade.
1
Frankly, by that time jet aircraft were rendering propeller driven fighters obsolete, and the British Fury and late model Spits were fast enough to defeat the buzz bombs. For some reason Republic aircraft always get derisive nicknames. Jug is one (some Brits thought it stood for Juggernaut); the F-84 was called a pig or a hog in Korea because it was in the mud all the time. The F-105 was called the Thud. ... And of course we have the famous Thunderbolt II, the Warthog. Another common factor was the ability to soak up massive amounts of damage. We what could have been when the Navy kept Corsairs on the roster as a CAS platform. It could be used on carriers too small to handle jets.
1
@Inkling777 Did it even have armor in it? Not to mention the self-sealing fuel tanks. How would it hold up from 20 mm Cannon shells fired from a 109?
1
... And here we are on the 17th with no invasion. Russia literally can't afford a full blown invasion. It's a tremendous drain on the economy to just mobilize such a large part of their military. That's not to mention the historical record is that Russians are shite at the start of any given war. That's not to say the Biden administration will spontaneously surrender without warning this weekend.
1
@rob5944 Look at how Germany reacted to British and American daylight bomber offenses. Defenses could take a terrible toll of attacking bomber forces, and there were many ways to deceive attacking forces. That's not to mention that everyone overestimated the effect heavy bombers would have. It turns out that several hundred bombers per attack were required, and frequent re-visits necessary to keep the target inoperable. Germany just didn't have to infrastructure and economic power to build fighters and medium bombers and heavy bombers. Both their economy & doctrine were geared to a short war approach. Germany had the best short war army on the planet. Note that none of the German campaigns lasted more than 12 weeks until the invasion of the Soviet Union.
1
@rob5944 How, exactly? By summer 1940, Germany didn't much of a navy left. Who would support the invasion forces?
1
The profile of a Spiteful reminds me of a late model Mustang. Odd. Don't see the point of further development. The Meteor had been in operation since 1943, and viable carrier designs include the Sea Fury, Corsair, Tigercat, and Bearcat.
1
Actually the DoD reported they had been tracking it for several days.
1
@marclaplante5679 ... Are you saying the F-35 is obsolete? Even the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18E still have life in them.
1
An extremely unnecessary design. the Wasp Major was plagued with problems. The Navy already had the Avenger and the Skyraider, and the Air Force had the P-47; all reliable and in production. The A-41 would have been a waste of resources.
1
Um, no.
1