Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How to judge what the best fighter plane is?
45-Shooter    1/3/2013 5:09:26 PM
I would list the following traits in the order of their importance; 1. Cruising speed under combat conditions. 2. Range/Persistence under combat conditions. 3. Flight qualities, specifically the ability to point the nose at the target easily and a very high rate of roll. 4. CL Guns with high MV/BC and rates of fire. 5. Pitch response, IE the rate at which you can load the plane. 6. Climb at Military Power. In WW-II terms, that means ~75-80% throttle, rich mixture and appropriate pitch on the prop.( A setting that can be held for at least 30 minutes!) 7. Top speed! To escape or run down the target. 8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"! After you rate these choices, I'll mark the list with what I think is the strength of each atribute.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
Jabberwocky       4/22/2013 10:18:35 PM

 you need to read a few non american history, books your view is too narrow and too biased
It seems that you are the one with a narrow and biased view of history.
How about we get back on topic?

 
Michael Madved? Someone who's a fellow at the Discovery Institute (the main proponents of 'Intellectual Design')? That's your go-to source when you're challenging someone on historical accuracy?
Sheesh.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/22/2013 11:13:54 PM

Michael Medved! A radio talk show host, teacher and, IIRC a Harvard lawyer too? ( But I could be wrong about this last?)
Sheesh.


 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky       4/22/2013 11:54:53 PM
Shooter, unsurprisingly you're just as rubbish at general history as you are at aviation history.
 
Having studied colonial history for my degree, I'll strongly disagree with you here. America has held plenty of colonial possessions, just by another name. Cuba, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Guam, Puerto Rico ect.
 
It's just been rubbish at holding on to some of them. Wiki can give you a quick overview:
 
 
I was fortunate enough to hear Chalmers Johnson lecture twice on the subject of the American Empire. Perhaps you should read some real history - I'd suggest 'Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire'.
 
There are also plenty of European nations that have no colonial history. Its not like Switzerland or the Bohemians was out there conquering parts of Latin America.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/25/2013 12:46:53 AM

 
Having studied colonial history for my degree, I'll strongly disagree
with you here. America has held plenty of colonial possessions, just by
another name. Cuba, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Guam, Puerto Rico ect.
First, you imply that protectants' are the same as colonies from 400 years ago? Right! They are different names because they are different! So you state that America holding those countries until they can take care of themselves is the same as England holding onto India for 400 years? How many wars did we fight in the Philippines to prevent their freedom? None. The Morrow insurrection was fought as much to protect the locals as American interests. Have you ever been to the Philippines? I have, they still miss us! Puerto Rico has voted down both state hood and independence five or six times so far.
Secondly, how long did we keep them and how hard was it for them to gain their independence from us? Compare that to India and England, or France. Right. 
 
I was fortunate enough to hear Chalmers Johnson lecture twice on the subject of the American Empire. Perhaps you should read some real history - I'd suggest 'Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire'.
I have, and I dispute some of what he writes. He is very liberal and changed his views after the fall of Russia. He completely ignores the facts of 1,400 years of Islamic terrorism and his Blowback Trilogy is very different than some/most of what he wrote for the various Government institutions before the end of the Cold War.
 
 

There are also plenty of European nations that have no colonial history. Its not like Switzerland or the Bohemians was out there conquering parts of Latin America.
Name one of consequence that is not land locked AND did not have Colonial asperations. Name one with an extensive empire that let it go WO massive revolutions? India/England, or France-Algeria, Guiana and South-east Asia? Right!


 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/25/2013 10:48:44 AM
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/25/2013 8:33:24 PM

I refer not to the various gang wars over who controlled what, but real live population wide rebellion to throw the Yankees out.

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/25/2013 8:44:40 PM

This small action took place in 1912, during a “peace-keeping” mission that would later be known as the First Nicaraguan Campaign. Indeed, there would be many more such actions involving Marines in Central America and the Caribbean during a period that is now known as the “Banana Wars.” These small wars were fought for a number of reasons during the American ascendancy in the region between the Spanish-American War and 1934 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt withdrew the last Marines from Haiti. Some were pacification campaigns in support of American foreign policy, others were intended to protect the new Panama Canal, a few were directed at preventing the spread of German influence into the region, but most were launched to “protect American interests and citizens.” 
None of them were actual revolutions. Most were between our forces and the Gangs that wanted to wrest control of lucrative businesses from their lawful owners, American, or local and had little or no support from the population at large!
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/25/2013 10:12:49 PM
The general rule was imperialist Yankee rampage for more than one hundred years through Central and South America foolish one. This is but one of hundreds of examples.
 
 
Foolish one, it is an example case of the general rule.
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/26/2013 12:17:12 AM

The general rule was imperialist Yankee rampage for more than one hundred years through Central and South America foolish one. This is but one of hundreds of examples.
   
Foolish one, it is an example case of the general rule.
But IF it started with the Spanish American War and ended in 1934, how did it last 100 years? Right!
 
 



 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/26/2013 1:37:48 AM
Panama... George Bush the elder. Foolish one. And it has not stopped at all. Haiti now...
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics