A rational approach to debates and 'best' arguments...?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

One of the conditions revolving around World War II is the fact that no other time in history has there been such a diversity of aircraft in hostile skies over such a period of time. Add to that condition the fact that powered flight was still in it's early stages, so it was not impossible to see a biplane and a jet in the same skies.

You can debate the "best fighter of WWI" or the "best fighter of Korea" and have a fairly easy conclusion, but it is going to be nearly impossible to get everyone on the same page with this sort of debate regarding WWII...

Even when you clearly go for qualification such as (but not limited to):
1) time from concept to production
2) cost and ease of production
3) servicability
4) range (combat radius)
5) multi-role applications (ground attack, interceptor, high/low altitude capable, etc.)
6) ability to absorbe battle damage
7) pilot "friendly" (was it a killer of "green" pilots)

When the obvious solution should be based on looks:
1) does it look better in camo as opposed to polished?
2) Will nose-art or aggressive unit insignia enhance it's appearance?
3) will more weapons protruding from it's wings or hardpoints help or hurt it's ratings?
4) if it's single engined and has a turret, it's disqualified no matter what...
5) can it look impressive on the ramp or does it have to be in flight to be appreciated?
6) will a sexy girl leaning against it improve it's appeal?

These are the most important points to consider...forget all that other technical, statistical non-sense! :lol:
 
Well, I guess it depends on whether you are looking for an opportunity to engage in rational, balanced discussion with like-minded individuals or the chance to be opinionated and insulting without the risk of being kicked in the spuds. Personally, I'm here for the first option, but most of the rest of you are just plain w$$k$rs.
 
Seriously, I think it's fair enough to be politely dismissive of statements that can't be supported with at least some direct evidence. Me and flyboy hade a pretty enthusiastic exchange about the effectiveness of .50 cal mgs v heavy bombers at one point but short of trying to shoot down a B-17 with P-51 who's going to know?
I've got to pick up a few history units for my degree this year - I might try to do something re WWII fighter performance, just to subject myself to a higher standard of verification. Should be interesting, but maybe not so much fun.
 
At the end of the day, hardly ANYONE posting here has ANY first hand experience or knowledge of what they're talking about.
I do disagree with Wingspanner's assessment that because we have no experience of dealing with the aircraft we debate, we are in no position to debate them; that's arrogant posturing claiming such a thing; these forums are here so we can debate these things and let's face it, WW2 was a long time ago. .

Be advised that there are more people on here than you think who have worked on or flown a variety of military aircraft from all eras. I would tiptoe softly before you paint members of the forum with a broad brush, and BTW if you ever want to see my resume, I'll be glad to post it.
 
Be advised that there are more people on here than you think who have worked on or flown a variety of military aircraft from all eras.

Hear hear. Perhaps I should have added to my post that there are many here who have first hand experience with warbirds and other historic types (myself included).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back