"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War "
- Thread starter NVSMITH
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
We are discussing the relative merits of two aviation communities where at one of those communities people who are not prepared to have a look at the content of the other one are writing it off as completely worthless.
It sounds to me like a lot of snobs who won't let someone into their club because they did not go to Oxford or Harvard.
buffnut453
Captain
No. We are supposed to be discussing whether the P-47 was the best fighter of WW2. You came in spouting the "bomber mafia" conspiracy theory nonsense...and it all went downhill from there.
And it's not like people from this forum haven't watched the videos. Again, I point you to the post by D Deleted member 68059 regarding swirl throttles. There are many others able to raise the BS flag when they see it, including
drgondog
,
BiffF15
and plenty of others.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
To get rid of the quote that will not die, go to the reply box, backspace over the entire quote, leaving only an empty box, and then press "post". You'll get an "oops" error message due to no content, but when you go to reply again, the offending quote should have been sent to Internet Hell, where it rightfully belongs.
I don't see anyone writing it off completely. Many have said he has some enjoyable and informative videos, but they are often filled with a personal opinion based bias (or simply a biased based interpretation of data). I, however, see known and accomplished historians, authors, and researchers pointing out inaccuracies and falsehoods.
Isn't that the norm for scholarly research? Peer reviewing? I know it was in all of my scholarly research in both my undergraduate and graduate studies. If the source/data was not peer reviewed it was suspect.
Likewise, you say it sounds like a lot of snobs, however, you are doing the same thing by writing off everyone else because they don't have a produced video on Youtube, a ton of "likes", and 200K in "followers."
Thank you.
I appreciate your help.
Computers and I do not get along too well sometimes, like at 0700 as it is where I am now and the sun is coming up.
Enough for today I think.
Last edited:
No. We are supposed to be discussing whether the P-47 was the best fighter of WW2. You came in spouting the "bomber mafia" conspiracy theory nonsense...and it all went downhill from there.
And it's not like people from this forum haven't watched the videos. Again, I point you to the post by D Deleted member 68059 regarding swirl throttles. There are many others able to raise the BS flag when they see it, including
Relax. Lets not get snippy again.
I am hardly writing anyone off for not producing a video.
I was quite clear in saying I would not be making one myself, so I am hardly going to be criticising others for not making one.
You are making things up.
I'm not making anything up. Everyone can go back and read what you wrote. You repeatedly counter someone by questioning how many videos they have produced.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
Attachments
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I think the point the others are making is that the number and magnitude of errors tend to impeach the credibility of any source. If I told you the 747 was a twin jet, you'd rightly look askance at other claims of mine. It doesn't mean they would all be wrong, it just means that numerous and/or massive mistakes raise doubts about the research that has gone nto the production.
I've watched several of his videos, and they seem okay. I'm technically unqualified to perform the detailed critique others are doing here, which is why I'm reading more than writing in this thread. I'm just trying to point out some of the reasoning going on that you take umbrage at.
If I watch something to learn something and I find I am bombarded with "bomber mafia" with no proper explanation of who they are and the whole story is hung on a document called a decree by the author that prohibits something, just reading that document and finding it isnt a decree and it doesnt prohibit anything, why would I watch more. The rest of the video has more omissions than content, and that is from my viewpoint as an interested lay person. From my lay knowledge that video is full of errors omissions and just plain nonsense why should I watch more of it?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Which is, of course, argumentum ad populum -- another informal fallacy of reasoning, as you and others are pointing out.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
Watch Gregs videos, enjoy them, write lists of questions and go and do your own reading afterwards.
He has a fantastic droll voice which is entertaining, is a good story teller, and has many areas of high competence
unusual for YouTube because he`s a pilot.
However, do not imagine for a second that this is the same as reading a serious historical book, its Greg talking about what he
likes to talk about and think about. Its the digital equivalent to a fireside chat over a beer.
Don't think I enjoy saying that, Greg has recommended my book to people, and so I don't feel particularly good about pointing out what
he gets wrong. But, he tries that 5% too hard, and strays into areas which ARE conjecture, and does not necessarily indicate to the audience
when those points occur. Leading to... well... ^^^ This.
He has a fantastic droll voice which is entertaining, is a good story teller, and has many areas of high competence
unusual for YouTube because he`s a pilot.
However, do not imagine for a second that this is the same as reading a serious historical book, its Greg talking about what he
likes to talk about and think about. Its the digital equivalent to a fireside chat over a beer.
Don't think I enjoy saying that, Greg has recommended my book to people, and so I don't feel particularly good about pointing out what
he gets wrong. But, he tries that 5% too hard, and strays into areas which ARE conjecture, and does not necessarily indicate to the audience
when those points occur. Leading to... well... ^^^ This.
You will argue this 'til the end of time, and you have caused me to watch it again a 4minutes 12 seconds Greg states that "He decreed that no fighters would have drop tanks, this would have dramatic ramifications". February 1942 is 14 months before the P-47 started operations in UK, so what is the point how long did Republic need to get themselves and their plane sorted with a drop tank?
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
More time than De Havilland needed to design, build & test fly the best multi role twin of the war.
Theres a whole host of things that could be quoted, its about how long the Russians needed to transport their industry east and get it working again. I know a drop tank isnt just a metal balloon it needs expertise to design one but if you can design a plane how difficult is it? Exactly the same applies to the "private venture" argument. Many aircraft and their engines were private ventures, how does the cost of getting a working Merlin into a Hurricane compare to a droppable tank? I just dont see what his point is at all.
buffnut453
Captain
Actually, the point you made about RAF Spitfires escorting early USAAF bomber raids is the icing on the cake for me. If the USAAF "bomber mafia" was so opposed to fighters, why did they ask for exactly that kind of support right from the very beginning?
