Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1. That didn't work out so well for the Japanese in ww2. A better idea would be for your armed forces to work together. Crazy thought. It'll never catch on...
    26
  2.  @grizwoldphantasia5005  your not wrong in a way. But your a little off, the reality was quite different ... it is worth noting a few things. 1. Budgets were incredibly tight.* 2. The prevailing strategic thinking of the time, as far as air warfare was concerned involved bombers and destroying civilian moral (terror bombing). As a result the trenchard doctrine put bombers and bomber command first. 3. Point 2 of course caused huge worry in Westminster and in the general public. The idea of an island nation having its citizens attacked directly had caused a public upheaval in ww1**. Added to that the worry, if not expectation that enemy bombers would be dropping poison gas, and you had to come to one conclusion: if the deterrent value of our bombers retaliatory strike doesn't stop the enemy. Then fighter command needs the next priority. To defend British subjects. 4. The fleet air arm had resources that were actually very good. The RN was the world leader in aircraft carrier operation AND in carrier tactics.***. The meme is that the faa had antiquated aircraft etc. But in 39 they were contemporary. And though airframe development struggled, that wasn't due to infighting. 5. Coastal command. This is the area where you do have a point. BUT. I'd argue that your point isn't valid pre war. Mainly because coastal command didn't really have a mission. It wasn't until 39/40 that ASV and other technology came along, that coastal command had the ability to make a difference at sea. Some would argue perhaps not until 42/43. *having been involved in ww1 from start to finish, and having mobilised the empire. Commit huge numbers to the front in France. Plus the grand fleet and all Britain's industrial might. And yet. Britain ended the war oweing America a staggering sum. Part of the plan to pay this back involved austerity on a grand scale. The military was cut back to a shadow of what it was in 1913 **though the actual impact on civilians was massively exaggerated in the press. And in the minds of the politicians. * courageous and sub hunting may have been poor tactics but that wasn't known in 38/39
    6
  3. Was a cluster fuck that's for sure. But that's Westminster for you. I often wonder. What would have happened in 1946 if America went "yeh, don't worry about the debt". Britain could have kept a front line navy and at least kept an aerospace industry that was more than just rolls Royce. Irony. Germany got the Marshall plan. Britain got a bill.
    4
  4. Also. The Ukraine have (generally) Soviet era aircraft. They have done incredibly well. But I don't think their performance is comparable to what, say... the Luftwaffe and RAF can do.
    3
  5.  @minuteman4199  how would that work as weapons move into space? I don't read much about the worlds affairs post 1950. But I was sure I read the USA has a space-air force sort of thing that's a branch of the armed forces? I seem to recall a chieftain video showing all the individual us armed forces there were loads!
    3
  6. Plus a larger lifting ability. So more weapons and more fuel for loiter time
    3
  7. Wouldn't it be the F51 by then? Tri service designations and what not. I have to ask. What would be the point? I mean if the USA wanted a ground attack, piston engined version of the Mustang then they had..... The Mustang
    2
  8. Isn't that what the f35 is for? 😅
    2
  9.  @mbryson2899  hmmm yes sort of. The Nazis were a different kettle of fish. It all goes back to Hitler and his political stratagem. People often think the Nazis lost the war because of inter service fighting and because intelligence and reaserch was all fragmented But that's how Hitler wanted it. He would often appoint 2+ people and their agencies on the same task. That way everyone under him was too busy fighting each other to become a political threat to him. This happend pre war in politics in the nazi party, even before they were voted into power. The American way of operating seems more like the Japanese in ww2 to me. The services are so in thinking. Plus the way the government is setup. They know that someone is going to get a pork barrel buffet and better MY branch than yours .... I know that's true to some extent in all countries. But nobody does it like America.
    2
  10.  @grizwoldphantasia5005  further note. The RAF certainty did not block the FAA from developing carrier aircraft and tactics. The RN and the FAA I would argue was the best carrier force in the world in 39/40. Capable of night operations, escort and ferry missions in all conditions. Also able to provide fleet/convoy air defense. It wasn't perfect. But it was very good. It should be noted as well. The FAA air crew were very well trained
    2
  11.  @omgpix   @Joseph Roberts  other countries don't do it that way and it works fine. The USA didn't do it that way until after Korea. The us military has diverged massively. Ironically you've kind of displayed the thinking when you point out it makes more sense the army having CAS than the navy. Your thinking in many ways as the US armed forces are. It never crossed your mind that the us air force should be the only air force and should support the other forces. Ironically, the army here has gradually moved towards a US model when it comes to helicopters. I think since Afghanistan more than ever. But it's not a hard and fast rule. The royal air force still have helicopters. As do the royal navy. Pilots and equipment are shared based on operational needs. The Falklands was probably the best example of that. RAF and Navy aircraft worked side by side in support of the army.
    2
  12. That's why he's the expert :) one of my favourite guys on YouTube. Only the ww2 channel has as much expert knowledge. And that's a group of people. Not one guy!
    2
  13. The comment about not being able to blow up trucks on a road was both funny and tragic! I always wondered why the US doesn't have such aircraft like this to this day. I mean it's not like you needed f22s to invade a country like Afghanistan.
    1
  14. It's much much smaller. Plus it has a prop. And cannards. And no rotary cannon. I suppose they both have wings... So there's that
    1
  15.  @kutter_ttl6786  so its link to the mustang was.... Symbolic?
    1
  16. I'm pretty sure the guys that designed the thing will have accounted for that. Call me nuts but I assume industry leaders know more than some people off of the interwebs
    1
  17. They did .... That's why this aircraft wasn't made and the harrier was 🤣
    1
  18. Isn't that what drones already are? I mean predator was armed nearly 20 years ago....
    1
  19.  @PunkinsSan  the SABA was designed for air to ground and also to shoot down helicopters. Drones can do both and have done for some time. There are no dedicated air to helicopter drones. But there doesn't need to be. Not when to comes to modern NATO doctrine that's for sure.
    1
  20. Orrrr... The branches of the armed forces could work together instead of building their own individual empires.....
    1
  21.  @sidewalks29  that doesn't make any sense.....
    1
  22.  @Twirlyhead  yup. Ive been reading through the comments and I am sure half the people haven't watched the video. Or think it's an aircraft idea being pitched today 😳
    1
  23. You have to question. Couldn't a late 1940s aircraft do what this aircraft will? Heck a transport aircraft should do. It's only ever going to fly near/above enemy troops who are armed with AK47s if they are advanced. Or more likely rocks and or pointed sticks. Possibly a dangerous fruit. Otherwise it's indeed a "truck". A transport aircraft for things that explode. Maybe none USA allies can use the weapons and just step em to an A220 or something
    1
  24. Is this getting a bit ship of Theseus? Aka triggers broom
    1
  25. Depends when it was used. The Israelis showed that soviet pattern AAD wasn't anywhere near as good as they advertised. You know the old joke "if anti air missiles were as good as the makers claim, every aircraft in the world would have been shot down 3 times over". Again, look at the Falklands. RAF and Fleet airarm aircraft were able to operate
    1
  26.  @uberbeeg  actually the RN had the biggest budget cut of the 3 forces (if you count RAF+Army vs RN) by a HUGE margin. Look at the commission numbers of RN capital ships from 1870-1914. Heck 34 dreadnoughts (NOT inc Battle cruisers) between 1905 and the end of ww1. How many were launched in the interbellum? ..... Two. The nelsons. The London and Washington treaties were a big factor. But still. The RN was a shadow of its 1913 might. Even with the 5 kgV coming online in ww2, the RN was poor for capital ships through the war.
    1
  27.  @grizwoldphantasia5005  and what was the air opposition Also i did point out the start of the war. 39. Not 42 when the Pacific really became a theatre in the war. As for out dated designs. What's that got to do with this discussion? Although I'd point out that the swordfish was still capable in 39/40 and though the fulmar wasn't going to win in top trumps with a 109/spit. They were excellent designs given their air ministry specification. They were well designed for the job they were in visioned as doing. As for sources. J Holland (naturally). Shirer for the political intrigue. Fuller. Hastings (BC and CC). J Nichol. Trevor-roper. J Thompson. Patrick bishop. I could go on. Not that owning a load of books makes one an expert. But the old fallacy of the bumbling inept lions leading donkeys to slaughter in some Haig-esq slaughter because Britain wanted to appease, or to prefer jaw jaw over war war. Well its just ridicules. And manifestly not true. Could the FAA and CC have been better equipped? Of course. In hindsight
    1
  28. @derekhenschel3191  if it makes you feel better, the us air force has a habit of killing their allies as well. So they aren't just picking on the us army 😳. I only see one problem with you comment about the army air corps... Back then it was a corps. Ie prior to America joining ww2. The size difference is staggering. At the start of ww2 the USA army air forces had 25,000 personal... Total. That's it. Today the us air force has more than 5000 active aircraft 🤣. Maybe that's the problem. When you have a oversized military, it becomes harder to work efficiently?
    1
  29. @derekhenschel3191  yes but in ww2 the USAAF was effectively already independent. It had its own command structure and strategic goals. Yes co-operation with the army (especially in Italy and after D-day) was very good. But you can't compare thoes circumstances to today. It was a case of it had to work. That said. Remember that the generals when wanting bomber support had an absolute shambles of an internal political curfuffle to get them. It took Eisenhower issuing direct and unequivocal orders to prize bombers from the 8th air force to help in Normandy. Much as it did to get bomber command to do... Well. Anything other than area bombing. In other words the USAAF was acting more like the RAF than they were the pre ww2 army air corps. I hope that makes more sense?
    1
  30.  @emjackson2289  unless you haven't heard, the bird is the word....
    1
  31. Could that be because BAE already had an aircraft called the hunter? I assume hawker was folded into bae
    1