Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Imperial War Museums" channel.

  1. Rommel was very successful in WW1, then wrote a book between the wars, then lead critical part of the invasion of France. Rommel was building up an impressive reputation long before the African campaign. It didn't just materialize out of nowhere suddenly in Africa. Rommel did have his reputation hyped up, but it was built upon the back of Actual accomplishments and demonstration of leadership ability.
    539
  2. WW1 is always taught as a mindless exercise in pointless frustration and waste of life (and it very much was), such that no one is interested in studying it further. But when you study it instead as a transition between eras, and in a struggle to adapt to the modern technology and weapons, it's far more interesting.
    146
  3. P-51 was FAR cheaper than the P-38 and P-47. WW2 was a war of logistics. P-51: $50k P-47: $85k P-38: $105k P-51 was easier to learn on and transition to from the T-6.
    51
  4. Brits...
    22
  5. as already stated, it never would have made a real difference in WW2. Germany lost WW2 on Dec 11, 1941.
    11
  6. The US was very appreciative of Germany's efforts in WW2, both in shortening the war through wasted effort, and for the free research and development.
    10
  7. the Germans also fled to the US, and avoided the Soviet Union. And even Russians fled Russia for the US (e.g. Sikorsky).
    9
  8. and late war P-40N and P-39Q others had superior climb rate. they could be upgraded, the Zero could not. Even the SBD was used for CAP to defend carriers in Coral Sea, Santa Cruz, Midway, etc. and even shot down attacking zeroes. Multiple SBD pilots became aces.
    8
  9.  @buttyboy100  you mean like how Russia was broadcasting in the open in Ukraine? "Loose lips sink ships" wasn't created without reason. Rommel ultimately lost, no matter what he did, due to logistics. He wasn't getting enough of what they needed, and the Germans Never secured the Med (Malta and Gibraltar in particular). They never achieved air nor naval supremacy. And Germany never had a strong logistics train on land, and even worse over water. It was just a matter of time. Between Vichy France (the fact the Allies couldn't use that land), Germany, and Italy, they should have been able to secure the Med, making holding North Africa much easier (though even then I doubt if they could have held it for long anyways).
    7
  10. "GO! It's your duty Lad!" Women in WW1: "we want the right to vote" Gov in WW1: "the men earn it through military service/draft. what will you do in exchange?" Women in WW1: Angers me how eager women are to send men to their deaths and yet claim they are oppressed.
    6
  11.  @markfryer9880  "Once the Sixth Army was surrounded and forced to surrender at Stalingrad and then Rommel was defeated at El-Alamein that the world knew that the war had turned against Germany for good. " that's actually not true. Many knew Germany had no hope of winning against the US, that their defeat was inevitable once teh US joined the war. You have to get really deep into the weeds of WW2 history, and the noncombat factors of the war and years leading up to it to learn these things. I've been studying WW2 in extreme detail for almost 30yrs now. And I'm still learning new things all the time.
    5
  12. p-40, P-39, P-38, F4F, F4U, Spitfire, were not outclassed by the Zero. They were all faster and tougher. They all achieved positive kill ratios over the Zero in the Pacific as well. The P-40 pilots learned they could outturn the Zero above 300mph. Late war P-40N and P-39Q were much faster still and could even outclimb the zero. Even the Zero pilots in 1941 and 1942 considered the F4F an even match for the Zero when fought to its [F4F's] strengths. US fighters were designed specifically for Boom and Zoom fighter tactics (faster, non-turning fights). Japan had built their aircraft for Turn and Burn tactics (slower maneuvering dogfights). Boom and Zoom was the superior tactic however, and Japan paid dearly for this mistake.
    4
  13. "Allison engine only good at low altitude" Truth: P-38 It had carburetor issues, and lacked a proper integrated supercharger system, but it Was capable at high altitude if given a proper induction system.
    3
  14.  @WildBikerBill  technicians and constructors are low skill jobs and can be preplaced. did you see the industrial production increases in the US in WW2? a factory worker, or mechanic, doesn't have a clue how to design a functioning machine like a V-2. And Germans didn't build Russian rockets. Not every German needed travel documents. war is chaos, and people could easily move about other ways too. Hans Rudel and his pilots/crews flew their planes to the Western to surrender, front for example. others fled Germany and Russia before the war.
    3
  15.  @ryucartel351  the psyops aspect of WW1 and how it was then used to influence the US ever since is very interesting, but frightening at the same time. Most people are still oblivious to it and until they wake up and see it, it will/can continue. But in studying how such pysops can work so well, you really learn a lot about the human psychy at the same time though too.
    3
  16.  @DisinformationAgent  the Ki-43 was more of the IJA Zero. The Zero experienced almost no real improvement over the war as a consequence of its design. they removed too much structure to save weight, preventing them from ever upgrading to bigger heavier engines. Most later variants actually got worse, as they kept adding weight but no additional HP. Even Japan's fastest operational fighter plane of WW2 was slower than the P-40.
    3
  17. the amount of mental shenanigans in this video.... Canberra introduced in 1951, longest serving bomber in RAF, but then everything changed when russia brought out the SAMs. yet, to be the longest serving, it clearly served into the missile threat. and if the TSR2 was the answer to that threat, then shouldn't it have outlasted the Canberra? the claims aren't supported by the facts.
    2
  18. you skipped the MkVIII
    2
  19. A-36 was a phenomenal dive bomber and very fast at low altitude.
    2
  20. Excellent presentation! Much more energetic than your typical historical documentary or video. More upbeat and exciting.
    2
  21.  @MARK-gp9hb  of course a person who hates and despised Rommel would disparage him at every opportunity. That doesn't mean it's true. I'd be more interested in the opinions of people who liked and respected rommel but still criticized him. That I could put stock in. But the biased ramblings of a jealous competitor hold little weight.
    2
  22. And the US got it for free (sort of).
    2
  23.  @philiphumphrey1548  it did, and the development of the B-29 also began before the US entry into WW2, way back in 1939, with the first design being ready on paper in 1940 and first prototype flying in 1942. It had things like advanced fire control computers for remote turrets. these turrets were so good that gunners could shoot down fighters at longer ranges than the fighters could shoot down bombers, and B-29 gunners scored a higher kill ratio than even aircraft like the P-51.
    2
  24.  @csjrogerson2377  no, they did not produce 2, they built 2 prototypes. I never denied the A6M increased a few hundred HP (300hp?), but that is basically no improvement at all. the Allison V12 went from 1410HP to 1800+HP just by going from 56" to 70+" MAP. "As does the Ki-84 being 51 mph faster than the P-40." not true, the P-As does the Ki-84 being 51 mph faster than the P-40N was doing As does the Ki-84 being 51 mph faster than the P-40 410mph in 1944. P-40N was one o fthe most numerous P-40 models and had the improved engine capable of 2200HP. XP-40: 364mph on only 1000HP P40E: 378mph on only 1410HP P-40E in 1942: was being operated in combat at over 1800HP thus flying closer to 400mph (documented and tested/verified by Allison). P-40N: 2200HP (400HP increase over P-40E at 1800HP, 800HP increase over the official P-40E 1410HP rating) You cannot deny the P-40N was doing over 400mph and simultaneously claim other aircraft on far less HP were going faster, unless you are a science denier.
    2
  25. What was unique? it's shape What else developed throughout the war? P-40, P-38, F4U, F4F, ME109, Zero, FW190, and many more.
    1
  26. Allied Jet Fighters of WW2: Gloster Meteor DeHavilladn Vampire Lockheed P-80 Bell P-59 Airacomet McDonnell FH Phantom XP-83 XP-79 Ryan FR Fireball Regarding "operational" status of each is another matter. Both the P-80 and Meteor were withheld from frontline service, but both were able to be put into frontline service. And then there was the Vampire.
    1
  27.  @goodshipkaraboudjan  stop making excuses for the spitfire. nothing about the "tropics" was an issue any different from england. humid and salty air in both places. Brits used spitfires in Australia in the early days, and their first mission lost something like 7 pilots because they ignored everyone else's advice to Boom and Zoom fight the Zero, not turn fight it. "Shoot and scoot had been worked out well before the US entered the war." Yes, can't design all the Western fighters for Boom and Zoom, Before boom and zoom became doctrine. The Germans, US, UK, and more All designed for Boom and Zoom over Turn and Burn prior to WW2. Japan did not, they still had idealistic notions of "honorable" 1v1 combat).
    1
  28.  @goodshipkaraboudjan  "In 1942, the Australian government requested that the British send three Spitfire squadrons to Australia to reinforce the RAAF. The squadrons selected were the Australian No. 452 and No. 457 Squadrons, and the British No. 54 Squadron RAF." RAF used spitfires in Australia. "Shoot and scoot/boom and zoom was well established doctrine by the Allies long before the US or Japan entered the war." Correct, it became the norm in the 1930s. and all the European nations nd US adjusted to the change. Japan did not.
    1
  29. Zemke hated it. advocated switching to the P-51 first chance. finally changed units to get the P-51.
    1
  30.  @kryslanowski1043  "Zemke nominated himself for transfer in order to fly the Mustang in combat."
    1
  31.  @mlynch001  But even the P-38 turbocharged engines were actually better at altitude than the Merlin as well.
    1
  32. Huge mistake for Germany, but a huge victory for post-war US.
    1
  33. if the bombing was ineffective, the Germans wouldn't have wasted resources moving the plants underground.
    1
  34. Unsung hero of Battle of Britain? nonsense! all people do is sing the Hurricane's praises endlessly.
    1
  35.  @einundsiebenziger5488  because he saw what was coming. The people in Russia before the Soviet Union, and during the Soviet Union, were the same exact people. And its not like Russia was a Democracy prior to the Soviet Union either.
    1
  36.  @hamishwsmacdonald  anyone stupid enough to voluntarily choose the Soviet Union over the US is too stupid to be worth the US wanting them.
    1
  37. Isn't it strange that the Brits wanted a P-51 at altitude, when they built a crap ton of low altitude only fighters? Hurricane, Typhoon, early spitfires, and more. Brits also neutered their P-38s
    1
  38. US: P-51A and A-36, P-51B/C, P-51D
    1
  39.  @ronaldmarcks1842  and so you use him as a tactician. Also, intuition can be a powerful tool when used appropriately. Regardless of your appraisal of his supposed intelligence, he outperformed many people and got results others couldn't. and that makes him brilliant.
    1
  40. F4U came with at times 4x 20mm cannon and had better bombload capability, and was a superior dogfighter to the P-47. 6-8 .50cal is roughly equivalent in damage potential to 4x 20mm cannon. The F4U, P-38, Mosquito, and A-36 were all arguably better ground attack aircraft than the P-47. Below ~15K, the P-47 was an inferior dogfighter to most other fighters, including the P-40, Bf109, Spitfire, P-51, F4U, F6F, and many more.
    1
  41. nice! But a bargain for the US.
    1
  42.  @traviscoates6878  largely agree, but some of these things came in previous wars, like the US civil war. But not to the scale and effect of WW1, so I do still agree with you.
    1
  43.  @invisibleman4827  Some wars were necessary, inevitable, and even sometimes well planned and executed. Some war is mindless, but not all. Ukraine acting in self defense is not mindless for example. US coming to the aid of allies in WW2 was not mindless. Lives are lost, but not all are wasted. Some sacrifices saved many lives, making their death purposeful. Would you also argue firemen risking their lives and even dying to save a family from a burning building is equally as wasteful and pointless? WW1 was different how? Scale? WW1 was a fraction of the scale of WW2. Are you arguing that war is ok if it encompasses enough of the world and kills enough people? So the next war is ok and justified, so long as we make it into WW3? Heck, even WW0 was larger in scale than WW1 (World War Zero, is said to have been kicked off by none other than George Washington himself, look it up if you've never heard of WW0).
    1
  44.  @invisibleman4827  such pointless waste of life happens even without war. Guys survive the war only to come home and get killed by drunk drivers or other stupid reasons. Had the Western Allies fought on the Easter front, it would have played out FAR different and the loss of life would have been FAR lower. The Russians made the eastern front difficult for themselves. The Western front in ETO was the primary theater of conflict, as that's where most of the progress occurred. Just because Russia used human wave tactics and got bogged down in their own stupidity and created a pointless meat grinder that was worse than anything the Japanese even ever did, does not make it the primary theater of the war.
    1
  45.  @merryrose6788  I love Sabaton's music! I have it all in my favorites playlist.
    1
  46. Packard Merlin > RR Merlin
    1
  47. It was obsolete, but good enough to hold the line till better could come along, and it was very easy to maintain/repair. It took less work to keep them flying.
    1
  48. The Allison P-51 was a beast at low altitude. and P-40 could defeat even the P-47 below 15k ft.
    1
  49.  @darwinism8181  not even close. Russia only survived due to the US Lend Lease, and the multiple additional fronts the Western Allies opened up against Germany. and Stalin openly admitted it. The Soviets got clobbered on the Eastern Front against a Germany that had divided attention and forces. The idea that Russia could win all by itself is a fabrication, a Soviet lie. Germany slaughtered the Russian air force. But that same German air force got slaughtered on the Western front by the US/UK.
    1
  50.  @alexjenner1108  "it would have been all over for the allies in Europe. The US would have made peace with Hitler and focused on Japan." not necessarily. Invading Europe primarily from North Africa was the backup plan. But Germany never had an invasion fleet, and by Dec 11, 1941, Germany had no hope of defeating the UK.
    1