PDA

View Full Version : Another Military Channel top ten list



wayno7777
10-28-2005, 11:42 PM
Top ten fighters of all time according to their formula:

10. F-22 Raptor (sheese, doesn't even have a combat record)
9. Harrier
8. Sopwith Camel
7. Me-262
6. Supermarine Spitfire
4. Tie MIG-15
F-86 Sabre
3. F-4 Phantom
2. F-15C Eagle
And not to start another http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gifwar
1.P-51D Mustang....

Waldo.Pepper
10-29-2005, 01:59 AM
Top ten reasons not to believe anything (ok much! then!) the history channels says?

Ill start.

10 Their research department consists of first year University dropouts.

OK now run with the ball..

Ruy Horta
10-29-2005, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by wayno7777:
Top ten fighters of all time according to their formula

Would be nice to know that formula!

BSS_Goat
10-29-2005, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by wayno7777:
Top ten fighters of all time according to their formula:

10. F-22 Raptor (sheese, doesn't even have a combat record)
9. Harrier
8. Sopwith Camel
7. Me-262
6. Supermarine Spitfire
4. Tie MIG-15
F-86 Sabre
3. F-4 Phantom
2. F-15C Eagle
And not to start another http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gifwar
1.P-51D Mustang....

Looks good to me, but WTF is the Spitfire doing on it?

The_Ant
10-29-2005, 06:22 AM
The History Channel and Discovery Channels,
tests to prove the which fighter,which is to be the greatest in a top 10 is full BullZhit.If you are going to rank aircraft,then do it with their era of flight,not a sopwith camel against a F16,you cant compare those aircraft against eachothers!
The real tests should have have been which was the top 10 fighters of WW1,then WW2 and then planes in modern time.Not all buildt fighters against eachothers.
Sorry for bad english.

Stanger_361st
10-29-2005, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by The_Ant:
The History Channel and Discovery Channels,
tests to prove the which fighter,which is to be the greatest in a top 10 is full BullZhit.If you are going to rank aircraft,then do it with their era of flight,not a sopwith camel against a F16,you cant compare those aircraft against eachothers!
The real tests should have have been which was the top 10 fighters of WW1,then WW2 and then planes in modern time.Not all buildt fighters against eachothers.
Sorry for bad english.

Yes we do not know for sure but maybe criteria was how much that craft impacted in that time.

Opiate364
10-29-2005, 06:56 AM
Isn't the F-15C undefeated against aerial opponents? And the F-15C could totally take down a P-51

BaldieJr
10-29-2005, 07:13 AM
No Rocky? WTF?

neural_dream
10-29-2005, 07:13 AM
Aircraft are like women. Each one has his own list of favorites, including the folks in the American history channel. In the UK they usually start with the Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.
I'll start with Liz Hurley, ... erm I meant I'll start with the BF109:

1944
1. BF109
2. P-63
3. La-7
4. Spitfire
5. FW190
6. Ki84
7. P-47

VW-IceFire
10-29-2005, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wayno7777:
Top ten fighters of all time according to their formula

Would be nice to know that formula! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think it was combat record, kill ratio, range, probably something else that I can't remember.

Basically it stacks up to give the P-51 first place...

...on the other hand, stuff that we all consider important in terms of aerial combat is sometimes neglected.

danjama
10-29-2005, 08:26 AM
That list is so wrong...

p1ngu666
10-29-2005, 08:31 AM
funny thing is they think the p51 was best cos it protected the bombers,

ofcourse they fail to mention that the lw, in intercepter aircraft where hacking down bombers at a alarming rate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

americans seem incapable of relising the role of interceptor aircraft...

BaldieJr
10-29-2005, 08:39 AM
Oh the nuttery.

What generalizations can I make by watching BBC...

AI-1
10-29-2005, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Oh the nuttery.

What generalizations can I make by watching BBC...

They wear interesting anoracks? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

or is it duffel coats http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Regards

AI-1

bazzaah2
10-29-2005, 09:16 AM
Anoraks. Definitely.

ploughman
10-29-2005, 11:08 AM
Leave Auntie alone, she's not even in on this. So basically the formula was 'most conforms to single seat inline engined laminar wingflow long range escort fighter named after a breed of wild horse with naked women painted on cowling flying from soggy airbases in Suffolk?' Hmmm.

jarink
10-29-2005, 11:52 AM
I'd rate the F-15 #1. Excellent all-around fighter with an impeccable combat record.

I wonder why the MiG-21 didn't make the top 10? It's a much better design than a lot of people realise and it did fairly well in combat, although it suffered many losses due more to inadequately trained aircrew than design problems, I'd say.

SE5a was a much better fighter than the Camel. So was the Fokker D.VII. The Camel usually gets overrated because Snoopy flies it.

I have no idea why the 262 is in the top 10. While it was a revolutionary design, it's hard to say how well it would have done in combat against contemporary machines like the Meteor and P-80. The Bf-109 should have gotten this place.

horseback
10-29-2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
funny thing is they think the p51 was best cos it protected the bombers,

ofcourse they fail to mention that the lw, in intercepter aircraft where hacking down bombers at a alarming rate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

americans seem incapable of relising the role of interceptor aircraft... If that were the case, p1ngu, (do you mind if I address you by your first name?) why would we have bothered to fly aircraft designed to hack down interceptors?

The Mustang was the ultimate interceptor killer for its period; superb performance up high, armament designed for killing (or badly discouraging) fighters, sufficient range to be with the bombers all along their route, and the ability to chase down and whack the diving opponent that a Lightning or Spit would have to let escape.

In the first five months of its operations, the Mustang, operating in limited numbers and plagued by mechanical problems, absolutely ruined the whole war for the LW, and in real terms, did more to make the invasion of France in 1944 a possibility (remember, it had to be done by early June, or wait for '45).

It didn't win the war, but a good arguement could be made that it shortened it. If only someone had said "I say, let's put a Merlin in it" when that first example arrived at Liverpool in October 1941...

That said, I am shocked and disappointed that the FW 190 and/or Me 109 were omitted.

Yeah, like I had more faith in the scholastic integrity of the History Channel...

cheers

horseback

LStarosta
10-29-2005, 12:18 PM
http://www.geocities.com/amie_07/TomCruise/Maverick13.jpg
"WTF... No Tomcats?"

huggy87
10-29-2005, 12:37 PM
Hey Bearcat,
If you look at this thread. Why would you lock the one thread and not this one? This one is the same thing, just much later than the original thread. ...not that either thread should be locked.

heywooood
10-29-2005, 12:38 PM
Huggys' thread got locked - so IBTL....

And the P-51 was a dog - thats why so many were manufactured and flown by the allies.

No speed - under gunned - no range- and no manoeverablity whatsoever. P51 = cr^p plane be sure....Luftpanzies were trading in their 109's and 190's for He51's just to make it challenging to bag 'Stangs.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-29-2005, 12:43 PM
What we should have is a Top Ten of BS Top 10 aircraft polls.

1. History Channel.
2. History Channel.
3. History Channel.
4. History Channel.
5. History Channel.
6. History Channel.
7. History Channel.
8. History Channel.
....

you get the picture.

Ta,
Norris

neural_dream
10-29-2005, 12:49 PM
I don't know about the American TV channels, but the british ones have a top 10 or top 50 practically every day. Usually it's the same people voting and commenting on all of them, cars, women, sex scenes from the movies, civilian aircraft, scariest scenes from the movies, the same for the TV, the same for the theatre, the same for the top10 tv programmes, ...
It's just an easy programme to sell. Your b-celeb friends appear for a couple of comments on each item and all the rest is a semi-random list and old BBC footage.

heywooood
10-29-2005, 12:51 PM
winners get to be heroes...losers get to...well...

lets just say that part of being the best is a matter of perception and part of it is being better, in numbers, in experience, in fortune, and in quality. P51 was an excellent plane. So were alot of others. Let it go.

ashley2005
10-29-2005, 01:02 PM
what the history channel knoqs nothing ...the best plane of all time is this ..it saved the many lifes of british ducks in the ducklands campaign

http://www.chillywillyfan.com/chillypics/7/toy-plane.jpg

maybe i should join the history chnnel o_O

AI-1
10-29-2005, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
I don't know about the American TV channels, but the british ones have a top 10 or top 50 practically every day. Usually it's the same people voting and commenting on all of them, cars, women, sex scenes from the movies, civilian aircraft, scariest scenes from the movies, the same for the TV, the same for the theatre, the same for the top10 tv programmes, ...
It's just an easy programme to sell. Your b-celeb friends appear for a couple of comments on each item and all the rest is a semi-random list and old BBC footage.

And the couch-jockeys need to get more daylight. I feel sorry for Quentin, top gear has stopped showing him the love. Actually I think its cheap tv so they can afford to employ someone to keep pressing rewind and play on all of the repeats we get.

It's a theory..

Regards

AI-1

AI-1
10-29-2005, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by AI-1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
I don't know about the American TV channels, but the british ones have a top 10 or top 50 practically every day. Usually it's the same people voting and commenting on all of them, cars, women, sex scenes from the movies, civilian aircraft, scariest scenes from the movies, the same for the TV, the same for the theatre, the same for the top10 tv programmes, ...
It's just an easy programme to sell. Your b-celeb friends appear for a couple of comments on each item and all the rest is a semi-random list and old BBC footage.

And the couch-jockeys need to get more daylight. I feel sorry for Quentin, top gear has stopped showing him the love. Actually I think its cheap tv so they can afford to employ someone to keep pressing rewind and play on all of the repeats we get.

It's a theory..

Regards

AI-1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then again it could be a conspiracy by the conservative party to turn us all into gray dull uninterestolites modelled on their past leader; then come the next election they're turn on the charm offensive so we might find them interesting and vote for them.

More peas dear?

It's my conspiracy theory..

Regards

AI-1

TC_Stele
10-29-2005, 08:32 PM
Did anyone actually even see the program? In reference to what were these ranked the top 10?

I think the role of the plane in real life, rather than how it fairs in a simulator, is what matters.

p1ngu666
10-29-2005, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
funny thing is they think the p51 was best cos it protected the bombers,

ofcourse they fail to mention that the lw, in intercepter aircraft where hacking down bombers at a alarming rate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

americans seem incapable of relising the role of interceptor aircraft... If that were the case, p1ngu, (do you mind if I address you by your first name?) why would we have bothered to fly aircraft designed to hack down interceptors?

The Mustang was the ultimate interceptor killer for its period; superb performance up high, armament designed for killing (or badly discouraging) fighters, sufficient range to be with the bombers all along their route, and the ability to chase down and whack the diving opponent that a Lightning or Spit would have to let escape.

In the first five months of its operations, the Mustang, operating in limited numbers and plagued by mechanical problems, absolutely ruined the whole war for the LW, and in real terms, did more to make the invasion of France in 1944 a possibility (remember, it had to be done by early June, or wait for '45).

It didn't win the war, but a good arguement could be made that it shortened it. If only someone had said "I say, let's put a Merlin in it" when that first example arrived at Liverpool in October 1941...

That said, I am shocked and disappointed that the FW 190 and/or Me 109 were omitted.

Yeah, like I had more faith in the scholastic integrity of the History Channel...

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

cos they where losing tons of bombers.
just imagine how important interceptors where to the british and the germans and italians. people who HADTO intercept bombers.

few months after BOB the germans stopped sending over bombers in large formations in daylight, dont think they ever returned. they flew in by night, but that degenerated into a farce later on.

im talking about americans now btw...
seems like those who make these tv shows consider 50cals and the ability to escort bombers the most important things...

BaldieJr
10-29-2005, 10:40 PM
John Wayne, apple pie, and P-51's.

Elton John, boiled meat, and spitfires.

Two cultures and only one set of ******.

han freak solo
10-30-2005, 06:42 AM
The parameters for their formula had one thing that stood out in my mind. The "Fear Factor". Those armchair experts actually put in a "fear factor" of how fearsome an aircraft looked to them.

That show might as well have been a car show. "Ooooh, that one looks more fearsome than that one. Okay, let's bump it up in the rankings because it looks scarier!"

Well, Halloween is here. Maybe this show is for the Trick-or-Treaters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

ploughman
10-30-2005, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
John Wayne, apple pie, and P-51's.

Elton John, boiled meat, and spitfires.

Two cultures and only one set of ******. #

How refreshingly homophobic of you.

How about that balls on this one?

http://www.rupaul.com/image/rh_left_gallery.jpg

han freak solo
10-30-2005, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
John Wayne, apple pie, and P-51's.

Elton John, boiled meat, and spitfires.

Two cultures and only one set of ******. #

How refreshingly homophobic of you.

How about that balls on this one?

http://www.rupaul.com/image/rh_left_gallery.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You finally posted an image more disturbing than your penguin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 09:13 AM
nah thats not true, if it was there would be typhoon worship, as NOTHING is more scary than a typhoon.

well maybe a butchon 109, but thats from pure uglyness...

fordfan25
10-30-2005, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
John Wayne, apple pie, and P-51's.

Elton John, boiled meat, and spitfires.

Two cultures and only one set of ******. #

How refreshingly homophobic of you.

How about that balls on this one?

http://www.rupaul.com/image/rh_left_gallery.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You finally posted an image more disturbing than your penguin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you guys do know PA is from canada right.

WWTharn
10-30-2005, 05:39 PM
Clearing this up a bit:
and not because I agree with the listings..
But they werent pitting the planes vs each other-they were rating them for the effect they had when put in service and how well they performed in their time.
the planes were rated on best I can remember.
firepower/
service record/
fear factor(not how friggin scary it looked)But how the enemy felt when confronted by it. for example the 262- these guys had never seen a jet before think of how youd feel in a prop plane in WW2 and you see a dot go screamin by you and then rippin into a bomber. first jet ever used in any war should be on the top ten.
Production rating(how many were built){cost}
one might be kill ratio(kinda self explanatory.)

S!

Professor_06
10-30-2005, 06:45 PM
Goering said that when he saw Mustangs flying over Berlin the "the war is over now!" not the La, Yak Bf not the FW... the Mustang. Giddy up.

now

How can the crappy Camel with its rotary engine and horrible spin outrank the Fokker VII biplane (let alone the SPAD). Where is the Tomcat, or F16?

Must have been a grade school contest.

han freak solo
10-30-2005, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by WWTharn:

fear factor(not how friggin scary it looked)But how the enemy felt when confronted by it.

Yeah, but it was an assumed "fear factor". I don't recall any vets interviewed on that show giving their opinion of which plane was scarier than the other.

wayno7777
10-30-2005, 09:03 PM
Intimdation factor, not fear


Military Channel.
Same formula used on all their lists.
T-34, best tank.
B-52, best bomber, etc....

btw, sorry, it was late the night I saw it and figured since I threw up the bomber list, I'd thow this one up , also. No harm intended. I should have known better.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Enforcer572005
10-30-2005, 09:33 PM
the history channel, despite being one of the best things on tv (especially Lee ermy's mail call) does seem to have some odd production standards at times. The last time i saw "battle of the bulge" on there, they started doing teh same thing ted turner did and cut out the non PC scene of the german tank commanders singing "panzerlied"......not only the best scene in the movie, but vital to the story line and the theme. sheeesh. now that irks me.

The p51 probably was successful because it COULD escort bombers and take on the best the enemy had with considerable success at a time when that was the greatest need. That was its main virtue.....the right plane at the right time and the right place. Circumstances can contribute as much to success of a plane as its actual performance and pilot quality.

as an attack aircraft in korea, it suffered outrageous losses. So much for the USAF scrapping all the P-47s prematurely.

The camel wasnt a bad fighter, actually had the highest number of "confirmed" kills (anohter argument in itself), was extremely effective, but also killed more pilots in accidents than probably any other. Again, in the hands of the right guys, the advantages could be exploited.

I would think the corsair or hellcat would have been high on the list. Of course, i would also think the mirage 3 series would to, per the use of the isreali airforce in 67 and 73.

BaronUnderpants
10-31-2005, 10:27 AM
The factors Discovery chanel considered:

Killratio ( Good )

Fear factor ( I would fear any plane on my six if it had guns )

Inovation ( expert panel seem to use this as both pros and cons, depending on wich plane they talk about )

Product ratings ( Real important to the over all performance of the plane...not )

Service lenght ( same as above )


An example prooving the inaccurate rating:

Main reason Me 262 only made it to 7:th place was because it was extremly wounreble on take off and landings.........dhooo, name one ac that isnt. And its low production numbers, only arround 1400 ever built ( of course they pointed out that only 300 ever saw combat ) Of course every singel P-51 ever built saw combat, right?

Ex 2: F4 Phantom, 3:rd on the list was by the same expert panel called a "Dog", aerodynamics like ****, wings to small, didnt make a differance if u flew it straight or sideways, just as bad in either cases ( according to a pilot ), only had bigg engines. Made it to 3:rd simply because at the time they only incountered less skilled pilots and therefore did its job fairly good, real top noch airplane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Planes that didnt make the list was among others F-18, Zero and Corsair.



P.S. In the intro they mentioned that the list had been put togheter with the help of expert panel and audince pole??? Real sientific http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

ploughman
10-31-2005, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by han freak solo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
John Wayne, apple pie, and P-51's.

Elton John, boiled meat, and spitfires.

Two cultures and only one set of ******. #

How refreshingly homophobic of you.

How about that balls on this one?

http://www.rupaul.com/image/rh_left_gallery.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You finally posted an image more disturbing than your penguin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you guys do know PA is from canada right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I didn't. Kind've balls'd that up then, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Besides, I thought he was RuPaul.

Friendly_flyer
10-31-2005, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Main reason Me 262 only made it to 7:th place was because it was extremly wounreble on take off and landings.........dhooo, name one ac that isnt. And its low production numbers, only arround 1400 ever built ( of course they pointed out that only 300 ever saw combat )

I've thought about that one. Some of the parameters aren€t bad at all, but service length and number built is extremely dependant on circumstances, especially war.

In a total war between two rather equal sides (like WWI and II), the turnover rate of models are very high. No wonder the Hurricane had a short service life, and the Phantom had a very long one. Had the Hurricane or Zero had the fortune of being introduced in peacetime, or only seen service against €œsavage€ enemies, they may have seen some 10 to 15 years of service, if not more.

The Me 262s drawbacks were having low number built and complex and unreliable engines. It made me think, how long service life would the Swalbe enjoyed, had the war lasted, or if the Germans had won? How many would have been built, had the Germans (like the Soviet and the US at the time) had the possibility of producing virtually endless amounts of airframes? How reliable would the engines eventually have become, had the model been flow for a decade?

Judging an €œemergency design€ to the same criteria of reliability and numbers as the Mustang or Phantom will give some funny results. Not all €œsuccess fighter€ started off good either, the show even mentioned that the Mustang got of to a bumpy start.

Oh well, the show said that had €œLooks€ been a parameter, the Spitfire would have won hands down, so I guess I shouldn€t complain.

BaronUnderpants
10-31-2005, 12:15 PM
Totally agree, some parameters was good. The ting is that e lot of people waching thees kind of shows cant do anything but belive what is said ( my gf for one ) So what is said becomes the truth, thats what i have a problem with.

If the named the documentary "Famouse fighters" it would be another story all togheter.

P.S. Didnt Typhoon and Tempest suffer from engine truble to, wery high hp output causing engines to blow? maby just the Typoon that was later fixed with the Tempest?

Intresting thought about the 262...what if they where fitted with second generation jet engine?
Would it have become the all time fighter, propably. As it is now, considering what they had to work with, first jet fighter and all, i for one would place it way up there among the top 3, beats the F4 Phantom by a horse load.

WOLFMondo
10-31-2005, 12:53 PM
The Napier Sabre was a massivly complex engine and never really got the financial backing the Merlin did despite its potential being substantially more powerful than the Merlin or Griffon.

The Typhoon and Tempest had engine problems but allot was to do with incorrect maintenance by fitters. Sabres had to be warmed up prior to use and the starter like a giant shotgun cartridge.

Basically any misuse could lead to an engine fire.

A correctly maintained Sabre II could be run just as long and as hard as either the R2800's or Merlins which were both famously reliable. Typhoons and Tempests both used IIA's IIB's and IIC's, the latter two types where used in the majority of Tempests.