Comments by "Barrie Rodliffe" (@barrierodliffe4155) on "To Rule The Skies: The Greatest Fighter Planes of WWII | Classic Fighter | Timeline" video.

The Mk VIII was also used in Italy and was very much like the Mk VII which was based in England, flying sweeps over France and escorting bombers
3
@finallyfriday. Longer range at lower speed, less firepower, more payload at low performance, poor gun platform lower survivability due to unreliable engines, terrible roll over tendency when one of the unreliable engines fails, unable to stay with real fighters, tricycle landing gear means little compared to a lower landing speed and not needing a long paved runway, poor visibility of what is below you, The Spitfire was phased out in the 1950's, the P 38 barely made it to the end of the war in very limited numbers. Spitfires flew where the fighting was rather than stay out of danger like the P 38, Spitfires did more different jobs than the P 38 which was a poor fighter, poor at photo reconnaissance, poor at ground attack. The Spitfire was the fighter that won the battle of Britain, the Hurricane certainly helped. Just like Montgomery did more than any US general, the Spitfire did more than any US fighter.
2
@finallyfriday. Delusional fits you very well. as for US propaganda used to try to make the US feel good about themselves. Montgomery was the best general of the war but we had others also very good, unlike some of your leaders, you had King who cost many lives, Dugout Doug as MacArthur was called, Mark Clark who really stuffed up in Italy, Patton who was all mouth and no trousers, Bradley who hid away in the Battle of the Bulge and a few more who really should have been kicked out. All the troops under Montgomery fought well, the Poles and New Zealanders included, they took Monte Casino which the US couldn't. Montgomery took on the heaviest armour while the US faced little. It is funny how a little nobody who has never done a thing should try to downplay the British who were and are among the toughest people on the planet. Montgomery made it his business to make sure his men were treated well, he didn't care about personal glory at all. I know you have Hollywood to tell you how USA won the war. I sometimes watch the odd Hollywood movie for a laugh.
2
@dukecraig2402 The Mosquito was used for different roles, the changes were not big, the photo reconnaissance had extra fuel just like the photo reconnaissance Spitfires, there was also a fighter bomber version which carried bombs and could fight. There were different versions of other aircraft, the P 51 for instance had dive brakes added for dive bombing, it had extra fuel tanks added and a different engine to turn it into an escort fighter. The Mosquito was designed as a bomber but easily adapted to other roles using the same airframe, wings etc.
1
@dukecraig2402 Photo reconnaissance and just fit cameras and extra fuel tanks. fighter just fit guns, and ammunition, fighter bomber, just the bomber version with guns and ammunition. No harder than trying to do the same with any other aircraft. Just face it, the Mosquito was very good, far better than your favourite aircraft and the Spitfire was also very good and more versatile than many other fighters.
1
@dukecraig2402 Big deal, even the windscreen is different. I trust you know that the Mosquito airframe was the same, the wings the same, the engines the same. The Mustang had far more changes from 1942 to 1944 yet still gets called a Mustang. Just look at an early Mustang and a 1944 Mustang and even you should be able to see the differences. at least the obvious ones, virtually every major component was changed. The P 47 changed from the early version, the changes far more extensive than either the Spitfire or Mosquito. I have done far more research than you ever could and all Mosquitos were Mosquitos with fairly simple changes, You could easily remove the cameras and extra fuel, change the windscreen and put the guns back and you would turn the photo reconnaissance Mosquito back into the fighter version. Of course there were some obvious differences for different missions that is just common sense You really need to pull your tiny head in and stop making stupid comments on aircraft which you know nothing about.
1
Great aircraft which flew so well that the slight disadvantages were forgiven by pilots lucky enough to fly it., fuel injection had it's own issues, the instruments in the Spitfire were well laid out and it was easy to fly compared to other fighters. The DB engines were bigger but not as efficient. The P 51 D came late in the war and cured nothing, The negative G problem was fully solved in 1941, the P 51 D had to have a Rolls Royce engine and still did not have the performance or maneuverability of a Spitfire and it had other issues.
1
Did the entire war start in 1941? The P 38 was not in active service until 1942 and it was a poor fighter.
1
@finallyfriday. Just the truth the P 38 prototype first flew in 1939, production did not start until 1941. The P 38 first use in the war was in 1942 and it was a poor fighter. The P 38 certainly was irrelevant.
1
@finallyfriday. Sure little boy the P 38 was so good it was in production for all of 4 years, or part of the war and in service for just over half the war. Montgomery was he general who won in North Africa changed the plans for Sicily and made it work. Guess who changed the plans for Normandy and led all of the ground forces or to quote Eisenhower it was Montgomery who took us into France and kept us there. Montgomery also had to take charge of two US armies and reorganise them into an effective fighting force in the Battle of the Bulge. Montgomery remained in charge of one of these armies until the end of the war. A fact you will not know is that at the end of the war Berlin surrendered to the USSR on the 2nd of May, while the Germans in Holland, Denmark and the North of Germany surrendered to Montgomery on the 4th of may and Patton was still trying to get to Berlin on the 8th. I bet you do not know that the German's in the Lorraine which took Patton 3 months to make a few miles against a very weak army with little armour said " We would look at the map and ask ourselves ' Is Patton helping us' he has let us off the hook again". Without Montgomery the US would not have got into North Africa, Sicily or Normandy.
1
@finallyfriday. You bothered enough to reply. I am too intelligent to put up with your lies little moron. Never mind you can tell more lies and I will say so.
1