History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?

[PsihoKekec]

Pretty much every allied fighter started with classical canopy, before the bubble canopy was perfected to the point where it could be reliably mass produced, then almost every type was redesigned to fit it, as it gave pilots excellent situational awareness and cleared the air flow well. I think Tempest was the first one to have bubble canopy from the start of the production.

 

[Zachowon]

Pretty much every allied fighter started with classical canopy, before the bubble canopy was perfected to the point where it could be reliably mass produced, then almost every type was redesigned to fit it, as it gave pilots excellent situational awareness and cleared the air flow well. I think Tempest was the first one to have bubble canopy from the start of the production.

Ahhh that is why.
Perosnally, the Thunderbolt was the best ground attacksingle engine fighter of the war, with he P-51 being the best prop fighter.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Sorry, but according to Germans who had the misfortune of experiencing both, Typhoons were scarier than Thunderbolts and other jabos.

 

[Zachowon]

Sorry, but according to Germans who had the misfortune of experiencing both, Typhoons were scarier than Thunderbolts and other jabos.

What did they say that made them scarier?
And I also do not take any Germans word for anything during the war when it comes to the enemy (A history youtube has shown that they often made things seem worse.)

 

[PsihoKekec]

Cannons make the psychological impact of a strafing run much greater than machineguns. Thus if in strafing run by Typhoons and Thunderbolts both were to inflict the same casualties, the surviving Germans would be more shaken by the series of explosions from the Typhoons canons than from the impacts of Thunderbolts machinguns.

 

[Zachowon]

Cannons make the psychological impact of a strafing run much greater than machineguns. Thus if in strafing run by Typhoons and Thunderbolts both were to inflict the same casualties, the surviving Germans would be more shaken by the series of explosions from the Typhoons canons than from the impacts of Thunderbolts machinguns.

Effectiveness though depends on the type of targets and the amount of aircraft in the air. A thunderbolt would have a lot more strafing runs then a Typhoon for instance

 

[ShadowArxxy]

....and I get that.
Not what I am saying.

Are you one of those that thinks Lincoln was a bad guy and should not be praised for the emancipation proclamation?

I think everything he said and did shows that Lincoln was a ruthless pragmatist who would stop at absolutely nothing to ensure the preservation of the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was a brilliantly calculated move, but also one that had absolutely nothing to do with any moral or ethical beliefs on Lincoln's part.

If he thought emancipation was a moral imperative, he would have done it years earlier and done it without an escape clause.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Ahhh that is why.
Perosnally, the Thunderbolt was the best ground attacksingle engine fighter of the war, with he P-51 being the best prop fighter.

Nah, the Corsair beats the pants off the vaunted Mustang in everything but range. Mustang is a superlative escort fighter because of that range, but the Corsair can outfly it every time.

 

[Zachowon]

Nah, the Corsair beats the pants off the vaunted Mustang in everything but range. Mustang is a superlative escort fighter because of that range, but the Corsair can outfly it every time.

No, the Corsair was not even the best fighter we created in that theater. That was the bearcat, which was the Mustang of the navy

 

[Knowledgeispower]

No, the Corsair was not even the best fighter we created in that theater. That was the bearcat, which was the Mustang of the navy

Of course the Bearcat's development didn't finish in time for it to see frontline service in the war

 

[ShadowArxxy]

No, the Corsair was not even the best fighter we created in that theater. That was the bearcat, which was the Mustang of the navy

The Bearcat really doesn't count IMO because it was too late...

 

[FriedCFour]

As I'm on a mostly American site, let me drop the mother load of controversial opinions.

The militia and minutemen of the War of Independence are hilariously overrated. They got lucky at Lexington and Concord, but whenever they went up against British Light Foot, they got mulched as I understand it. Besides, this near obsession with the militia, of the common man standing up to the tyrannical British (who were such mustache twirling villains that we only wanted you to pay the Tea Tax), does a great disservice to the professional soldiers of the continental army.

I think the decision to bash on the value of militia is also silly. Yes, they weren’t fantastic in the role of going up against British light foot. Neither were World War II guerillas or any non-conventional armed force when going up against a conventional armed force. Thats a total misuse of the forces and where they work. Where the militia shines in the American revolution are at the battle of Bunker hill, when they defended a fixed and well entrenched position that didn’t involve line combat, but mainly in harassment, ambushes, etc like the Swamp Foxes actions. The militia couldn’t have won the war on their own, but if the military was organized at that time along purely professional lines, and only fought regular warfare, America would have been easily crushed. The militia ensured that the British had threats literally everywhere, had to garrison absolutely everywhere, had their supply lines fucked up and supply stolen and had to deal with an enemy that meant everywhere they went that farmer or townsman might be back tomorrow to shoot at him while he isn’t suspecting anything.

 

[absenceofmalice]

One thing I think people struggle to understand is that, back then, you could both think of the "negro" as inferior and absolutely abhor slavery. This is not surprising, given that antebellum slavery would have been considered barbaric by the Romans.

Some founder of the republican party pointed out that the idea isnt that there arent people inferior to you but that only a sociopath thinks that just because someones inferior to you you should hurt them and exploit them.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I think the decision to bash on the value of militia is also silly. Yes, they weren’t fantastic in the role of going up against British light foot. Neither were World War II guerillas or any non-conventional armed force when going up against a conventional armed force. Thats a total misuse of the forces and where they work. Where the militia shines in the American revolution are at the battle of Bunker hill, when they defended a fixed and well entrenched position that didn’t involve line combat, but mainly in harassment, ambushes, etc like the Swamp Foxes actions. The militia couldn’t have won the war on their own, but if the military was organized at that time along purely professional lines, and only fought regular warfare, America would have been easily crushed. The militia ensured that the British had threats literally everywhere, had to garrison absolutely everywhere, had their supply lines fucked up and supply stolen and had to deal with an enemy that meant everywhere they went that farmer or townsman might be back tomorrow to shoot at him while he isn’t suspecting anything.

This is exactly what I am getting at. The Militia were useful to the Patriot war effort, but they weren't the be all end all, and the British had mostly figured out how to deal with them by the end of the War (which is ironic as we had already learned how to handle irregulars in the Seven Years War, then seemed to omit it from memory by 1776. We managed to do it again for the Second Boer War in 1899!). By then it was the bluecoats who defeated us in open battle, having become quite a competent army in the 1780s.

However, hate to say it, if Burgoyne had some grey cells to rub together, you'd have been fucked. Full stop. No Saratoga means no French intervention, and no French intervention means you lose.

 

[Scottty]

This is exactly what I am getting at. The Militia were useful to the Patriot war effort, but they weren't the be all end all, and the British had mostly figured out how to deal with them by the end of the War (which is ironic as we had already learned how to handle irregulars in the Seven Years War, then seemed to omit it from memory by 1776. We managed to do it again for the Second Boer War in 1899!). By then it was the bluecoats who defeated us in open battle, having become quite a competent army in the 1780s.

However, hate to say it, if Burgoyne had some grey cells to rub together, you'd have been fucked. Full stop. No Saratoga means no French intervention, and no French intervention means you lose.

Part of the problem was the British officer corps were... not the brightest bulbs in the shop generally, right?

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Part of the problem was the British officer corps were... not the brightest bulbs in the shop generally, right?

That's what happens when you can buy your comission.

 

[stevep]

I mean, at least we did not have a northern Ireland type situation...

Also, Hot take, USAAF were better then the RAF

Well we could have used the American approach of mass slaughter and deportation to isolated wastelands that no one wants. Or if a group from a neighbouring nation seeks to gain control of some of our territory because a minority in that territory identifies with their nation would the US happy say "Oh yes you can have it."

On the 2nd point if nation A has about 3 times the population of nation B, plus vastly greater resources, isn't subject to blockade, bombardment, blackout and threat of invasion, enters the war over two years later than B and gains considerable information from B's wartime experience there would be something seriously wrong with A if it can't at least match and in some ways surpass B.

Frankly both nation's leaderships fouled things up with air power during the war was strategic bombing was in most cases a waste of time. It was effective against Japan because by the time the B-29 were used on lower level bombing attacks there was no real defensive operations and the Japanese housing and urban system made for massive civilian casualties. However for most of the war BC was a huge waste of sparse British resources and similarly the primary role of the USAAF in strategic bombing in Europe was that, once they abandon their doctrine that the bombers could fight their way through on their own and got long ranged escorts, the B-17s and B-24 made idea bait to lure the LW fighters into the air so they could be shot down.

 

[stevep]

Part of the problem was the British officer corps were... not the brightest bulbs in the shop generally, right?

As knowledgeispower points out that's the problem when you have a devilish combination of laissez faire in selecting your leaders combined with a restrictive class system. There were talented people but too often they got to positions of influence by so many predecessors [and many of their men] getting killed.

 

[PsihoKekec]

That's what happens when you can buy your comission.

And make the Army a depository for the failed sons of the nobility.

 

[FriedCFour]

This is exactly what I am getting at. The Militia were useful to the Patriot war effort, but they weren't the be all end all, and the British had mostly figured out how to deal with them by the end of the War (which is ironic as we had already learned how to handle irregulars in the Seven Years War, then seemed to omit it from memory by 1776. We managed to do it again for the Second Boer War in 1899!). By then it was the bluecoats who defeated us in open battle, having become quite a competent army in the 1780s.

However, hate to say it, if Burgoyne had some grey cells to rub together, you'd have been fucked. Full stop. No Saratoga means no French intervention, and no French intervention means you lose.

Eh, I don’t think no Saratoga means no French intervention and it wasn’t even just the French. The Spanish and the Netherlands contributed as well. The war was won in large part because of will to succeed and logistics because ultimately America was such a vast and overall rural land at the time that even though capitals and major cities were taken it didn’t do a whole lot to actually dampen the fighting ability, but cost an intense amount of resources and troops, and logistically deploying and maintaining a mass army overseas was a huge endeavor for an effort that was even totally popular at home, with a decent amount of pro American sentiment within Britain itself. Britain had pissed off enough of the great European powers at the time that they had ample reason to support the colonies and did, just to weaken Britain. The French probably would have intervened regardless of Saratoga.