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: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
45-Shooter       7/14/2013 6:31:25 PM

oh grow up, this is the internet anyone can claim anything and your record for making things up is legendary,
The only legend is that I did and still do all of those things! Eat your heart out.


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/14/2013 7:01:15 PM
But the worst single problem is when I state an idea, like shooting down another aircraft is one of the hardest things that can ever be done. I back that up with the facts that 50% of all fighter pilots never can do it at all in spite of many opportunities and that the top 1% of pilots shoot down about 40% of all Victims. Since these facts are in the public domain, they are not subject to required proofs. If you are ignorant of them, that is your problem because they have been mentioned many times by many people here on this board and this thread.
The idea has consequences, in that anything that can be done to make that significantly easier must be good.
Or the argument that is also self evident that it needs no proof. Ie, if two aircraft of about the same weight and size have vastly different speeds and inversely proportional powers, then one of them must be more aerodynamic than the other in order to cover the difference. No proof needed, it is a self evident truth!
I do know it's not very interesting. I have never posted any claim about my past or used it to support any post, I do not know about this. You make claims about the pictures I have posted and try to change the subject when you have no argument, or answer to pictures that clearly show lack of bomb coverage. I have ALLWAYS relied on verifiable sources for my rebuttals of your idiotic claimsWell, no, this is not exactly true either. In the past you have dismissed some of my ideas out of hand with out ever posting a single shred of evidence that they were not what I said.
You have still not answered the BDA Pictures, etc...

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/14/2013 7:23:59 PM
One more idea that should be self evident because of the many different people who have all stated it in one way or another; The VAST MAJORITY of ALL Victories are Vs Targets that do not know they are under attack and make no effort to escape. That then brings us to the following conclusions, again they are self evident and do not require proofs. That if plane type number 1 takes 40 seconds to close from maximum visible distance based on it's size and speed, it will be much less likely to score than a plane type 2 that only takes half as long to close that distance.


 


posting claims of deeds done on here to support your posts is either conceit or lies, unless it cam be supported it can be dismissed, you as a self professed scientist and engineer would know that any claim should and must be supported by evidence, you cannot claim something is self evident unless you have majority agreement, otherwise its a theory and as such must be supported 



 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky       7/14/2013 7:55:49 PM
"Since these facts are in the public domain, they are not subject to required proofs. If you are ignorant of them, that is your problem because they have been mentioned many times by many people here on this board and this thread."
 
Proof doesn't work like that. 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/15/2013 3:55:47 AM
One more idea that should be self evident because of the many different people who have all stated it in one way or another; The VAST MAJORITY of ALL Victories are Vs Targets that do not know they are under attack and make no effort to escape. That then brings us to the following conclusions, again they are self evident and do not require proofs. That if plane type number 1 takes 40 seconds to close from maximum visible distance based on it's size and speed, it will be much less likely to score than a plane type 2 that only takes half as long to close that distance.
 
the world doesnt work in such lovely absolutes and if you think it does you are obviuly living in a fantasy land
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/15/2013 4:00:51 AM
oh grow up, this is the internet anyone can claim anything and your record for making things up is legendary,
The only legend is that I did and still do all of those things! Eat your heart out.
 
Dont need to eat my heart out, as I just dont believe you, from your posts here and elsewhere it is obvious that you know little about the subjects your posting on making basic errors that anybody involved in these areas that would be second nature .
 
The fact that you need to boast in these areas would indicate that its a figment of you imagination.
 
I have seen posts where your claims of your past have been proved to be wrong so why would I believe it now?
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/15/2013 7:11:25 AM
I do know it's not very interesting. I have never posted any claim about my past or used it to support any post, I do not know about this.
 I have just told you
 
You make claims about the pictures I have posted and try to change the subject when you have no argument,
another unsupported accusation,
 
or answer to pictures that clearly show lack of bomb coverage.
I have never commonted on this other than to ask for clairification, clarification in which you get all the details wrong, I you cannot support your own claim why should we answer it?
You post a pitcure wiith no details (That I had to research to find anything about) and use it to support you post, yet it turns out that the pitcure wasnt what you claim
 
 
 I have ALLWAYS relied on verifiable sources for my rebuttals of your idiotic claimsWell, no, this is not exactly true either. In the past you have dismissed some of my ideas out of hand with out ever posting a single shred of evidence that they were not what I said.
Only after you have proved to unable to accept any counter argument, I can support all my posts but refuse to do so when you refused to, why should I spend time and effort when you refuse to do so for your own argument?
 
(note I stated that I rely on varifiable sources not nthat that i post those sources)
 

You have still not answered the BDA Pictures, etc...
 
you did not provide correct answers to the questions so that any answer I give will not be accepted by you as your initial viewpoint is wrong.
 
find pitcures that have sufficent information and we may look at them and answer
 
oh and you have yet to provide your proof of
34x500lbs from a B17
2x tallboy from a B17
Spitfire being the slowest roller
etc etc etc
 
so why are we to be held to a higher standard than you, if you cannot provide answers to questions you post then do not be supprisded when other do it to you

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    That is what "Self evident means!   7/15/2013 2:21:19 PM

Well, yes it does, that is why it's called "Self evident"!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    That is what "Self evident means!   7/15/2013 2:34:10 PM

the world doesnt work in such lovely absolutes and if you think it does you are obviuly living in a fantasy land
 
Well, yes it does! This IS the exact type of argument that does not rely on "Proofs" but on the prior knowledge base, well and numerously stated by many here, of simple facts, IE most planes are shot down from ambush, we here on this board only dispute how many, or what %age, between 80-95%, AND the "reasonable conclusion" that any "Normal person of average intellect and knowledge" would make! ( Sorry for the legalese!)
Note that the argument does not address the rest of those "Minority" cases, only those in the "Vast majority"!
Therefore it is reasonable to expect at least some of those here on this board to make those conclusions and answer that question in the affirmative!
The other means of stating that Posit would be; The plane which takes the least time to sneak up on it's target and thus leaves the target the least time to see the attack coming their by, the least time to avoid said attack, will be the more effective of two dissimilar types.

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    That is what "Self evident means!   7/15/2013 2:35:55 PM

The only legend is that I did and still do all of those things! Eat your heart out.

I have seen posts where your claims of your past have been proved to be wrong so why would I believe it now?
Quote those posts! 

 



 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics