Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Dark Skies" channel.

  1.  @grafixbyjorj  Pilots failed to use it properly, some even admitted it later. Early in the war pilots were still learning and aggressive. it took time to learn how to be patient and use boom and zoom tactics, wingman tactics, etc. Even the P-38 pilots suffered heavy losses early in its introduction until they learned how to use it properly.
    47
  2. "first fighter-bomber in the world" is a bold and likely false statement. Lots of fighters were fitted with all manner of ground attack weapons (guns, bombs, or rockets) long before the Typhoon started doing it.
    35
  3. Messerschmitt also interchangeably used both Me and Bf in their own testing documents, sometimes in the same report.
    29
  4. Best plane to never fight? HA!!! Never wise to make such bold statements, especially regarding dubious aircraft choices. Ta-152, DeHavilland Hornet, XF-107, F8U-3 Crusader II, YF-23, F-16XL, F-20, Avro Arrow, YF-12, and countless others deserve that title FAR more.
    18
  5. Ki-43 was inferior to the Zero, and yet the Zero fell victim to the F4F, Spitfire, P-38, F6F, F4U, and more in the South Pacific. And even late model P40N and P-39Q were a match for the zero.
    14
  6.  @johnhenryholiday3845  this is a side effect of gov, not capitalism. Overregulation is actually anti-capitalist (mind you i said Over-regulation, not All regulation). But All forms of gov cause the same overbearing regulatory side effects.
    13
  7. The FW190 was introduced in 1941, and was initially countered by the Spitfire Mk8 and Mk9.
    13
  8.  @BeardedFrog  militarily we could have won any time we wanted, even in the first year of war. But the war was a political football, the politicians never intended to win it.
    12
  9. the Italian P.108 looked incredibly like the B-17 as well. Just coincidence, but really neat to compare.
    11
  10.  @kennethcurtis1856  he does this crap in most of his videos. you'd think he'd learn by now.
    11
  11. had the Hawker Typhoon never existed, WW2 would have played out exactly the same, and no one would even notice the absence of the Typhoon. Heck, aside from a few minor accomplishments that were actually trivial in the grand scheme of things, I can hardly find any evidence of truly meaningful impact on the course or outcome of the war.
    10
  12. but 15yrs was a long time for aircraft in the 1940s to 1970s. Some aircraft were lucky to remain in service for 5yrs.
    7
  13. the doors could be jettisoned to bailout, or if a crash landing was anticipated.
    7
  14. I think it was in an episode of Dogfights
    7
  15.  @flarvin8945  Agreed. In hindsight that was the right thing to do. But the US had its hands full trying to manage so much of the globe post-WW2 (also why the Korean war happened)y, and the last thing the gov wanted to do was get into a fight with one of our oldest allies, the French, in the midst of it all.
    7
  16.  @flarvin8945  We actually know in hindsight that China wasn't prepared to back Vietnam if we decided to invade the North. Had Kennedy not been killed, the US never would have gotten involved. It was all Johnson's doing, for political gain. The US should have supported Vietnam's independence all along for sure, easy to judge in hindsight though.
    7
  17. any proper aviation fanatic is annoyed when people use photos and video of the wrong aircraft. There is no excuse for it these days given how easy it is to search this stuff.
    6
  18. why do you keep showing footage of the Sea Dart?
    6
  19.  @markpaul8178  Most ground striker aircraft can out turn fighters, due to their higher wing lift. Slower speed and high lift wings help in this regard. But a smart fighter pilot would not try to turn with them and instead use their speed advantage. But other factors like energy retention, acceleration, roll rate, etc. also play a role in deciding a fight. But even SPADs and F4U have taught MIG jets a lesson in this, when pilots think strikers are easy prey and get cocky, they can be beaten by a good pilot.
    6
  20.  @Hebdomad7  I think you need to study more history regarding the plans the US had for defeating North Vietnam, and perspectives of those from North Vietnam at the time.
    6
  21.  @daftbence  Even if you remove the German inspired projects from the list, the US still produced a ridiculously large number of experimental designs compared to any other nation.
    6
  22. and he used a bunch of Sea Dart footage. I was better at airplane identification as a child.
    6
  23. P-39 had a hub cannon too
    6
  24. and existing US designs were already far superior to it, such as the F4U and P-51. speed was more important than maneuver, and even the late war P-40s could go over 400mph.
    5
  25.  @BobSmith-uw9ht  there were some variations, but certain pictures show many features to be strikingly similar to the B-17, more so than the Pe-8. It's not a copy, just has visually similar features and layout.
    4
  26.  @senseofthecommonman  Had the Typhoon not existed, other aircraft would have been mass produced even more so than the troublesome and maintenance intensive Typhoon, that would have destroyed those trains and such instead. Therefore, no meaningful difference would have occurred. The Typhoon did a job, that other planes could also have done had the Typhoon not been an option. All the manufacturing and maintenance resources for the Typhoons would have gone into other airframes doing that same job. And being a combat vet who has received air support from many types (A-10, F-18, AV-8B, B-1, AH-64, OH-58, AH-1, AC-130, MQ-1...). I don't care which aircraft puts ordnance on target, just so long as someone does it. I don't get personally attached to the aircraft, only the results. The Typhoons consumed a lot of resources in terms of material, engineering, maintenance, time, etc, that could have gone into less troublesome airframes.
    4
  27. the top Japanese aces also respected the F4F in a fight
    4
  28. My first airplane models were the Revell F-4 phantom and B-17 Memphis Belle
    4
  29. 2500hp is nowhere near double of any other engine of it's time. Merlin started at 1300hp years earlier and increased to about 1700 by wars end. Griffon started at 1700hp a year after Saber. R-2800 Double Wasp started at 1500hp and was doing 2000+hp by 1941. BMW 801 started at 1500hp and was doing 2300hp by war's end. Allisons were doing 1000hp almost a decade before the Saber, doing about 1500hp by 1940, and ended the war putting out over 1800hp (P-38 and P-40 models), and racing engines after the war achieving 3,200hp.
    4
  30. and the P-39 achieved favorable kill ratio against Japanese fighters in the South Pacific in the early years.
    4
  31.  @worldtraveler930  yup, and the P-39 remained in USSR service into the 1950s, even during the Korean war. The P-39Q was superior to the A6M zero in every way but range and maneuverability (same for the P-47, F4U, P-51, F6F, P-38, etc.)
    4
  32. Don't forget the Hawker Hart bomber that forced fighter design to switch from maneuverability to speed. Thus resulting in the Hawker Demon and Hawker Fury fighters, the direct descendants of the Hurricane. Hart -> Demon -> Fury -> Hurricane -> Tornado -> Typhoon -> Tempest -> Tempest II -> Sea Fury
    4
  33. it's fabric tail was easy to repair quickly, and was known to survive cannon hits, the explosions merely tearing of the fabric skin, but not compromising the structural integrity of the frame.
    4
  34. tailless designs have been flown successfully, even with mechanical controls only, since before WW2.
    4
  35.  @Zankaroo  the pilots did fail, as they also failed with the P-38 initially. But yes, the ultimate failure was that of the gov/military officials. But just like the P-38, P-51, F4U, Spitfire, and others, once teh bugs got worked out it turned into a capable plane that could fight a Zero and win. Pilots wanted to turn fight and be aggressive, and they had to be taught to be more patient and use boom and zoom and wingman tactics to win (true for all of the best US fighters including the P-51, F4U, P-47, etc.). The age of pure maneuvering to win dogfights died in the 1930s, and the new pilots had to be taught that.
    3
  36. Wrong. the Allison mustans were amazing. they were designed to be low altitude fighters, and did well in that role.
    3
  37.  @konstruct11  the F4F was also upgraded throughout the war as well, and saw plenty of action right up to the end. But even without upgrades, and facing the best and most experienced Japanese pilots, the US pilots flying F4F scored more kills than they lost. In the most favorable conditions of WW2, the F4F still scored better than the Zero.
    3
  38.  @tarasbulba3190  No, it is a "name" from my past.
    3
  39. and achieved a favorable kill ratio over Japanese fighters
    3
  40.  @kirkmorrison6131  the P-39, P-40, P-38, and all other US and Western fighters in WW2 were designed as Boom and Zoom fighters, where speed is more important than maneuverability. Japan didn't get the memo in the 1930s and continued to focus on Turn and Burn fighters, which was a mistake. Late in WW2 and into the Cold War interceptors and climb rate became critical in addition to speed. This meant that the P-40, P-39, P-38 and more were faster than the Zero, Ki43... but less maneuverable, and comparable or worse climb rates. But the late war P-39Q and P-40N were very well matched to the Zero in all but range and maneuverability. The P-39 and P-40 had as good or better service ceilings, better speed, tougher, self sealing fuel tanks, and relied upon diving attacks and wingman tactics. this proved to be the superior form of dogfighting, and the standard practice for ALL US fighter pilots. The average US pilot was also better trained, whereas the Japanese had a very small pilot pool, and put ALL of their top pilots in one single unit. The F4F was also well balanced against the Zero. And the Spitfire was basically equal to the Zero in every way except range. Early dogfights in the Pacific, starting on Dec 7, 1941, and going into 1943, US pilots were initially caught off guard by surprise, and werent aware of the Zero prior to Pearl Harbor. After Dec 7 piltos wanted revenge and were too aggressive and wanted to turn fight. It took time to get them to stay disciplined and stick to Boom and Zoom that their airplanes were designed for. Boom and Zoom fighting requires much more patience and discipline, and even online gamers are overall terrible at Boom and Zoom becasue they are too eager and aggressive. But most of the top aces were Boom and Zoom pilots (Red Baron, Eric Hartmann, Richard Bong, Rickenbacker, and many others.). Pilots like Hans Marseille, Werner Voss, and Saburo Sakai were Turn and Burn pilots, using superior piloting to outmaneuver their opponents. Something to keep in mid, while the P-39 and P-40 werent as good against Japanese planes in maneuverability, they could both outmaneuver a Bf109, and the P-40 was superior to the P-47 in every way below 15k ft other than range and firepower. The P-40 was faster, accelerated quicker, was more maneuverable, was equally as tough taking punishment and still flying home, used in ground attack roles, was an excellent diving airplane, etc. than the P-47.
    3
  41. Underpowered? the Allison engine was putting out 2200hp by war's nd, and was lighter than the Merlin. It is a beast of an inline engine. They put the Merlin in it and the P-40 performed no better, and they put the Allisons back in it.
    3
  42. and also produces more drag, making it slower.
    3
  43.  @Cuccos19  Slower, shorter range, parity on maneuverability (but pure maneuverability was not critical for winning dogfights). In what way was it Better? The Ki-43 didn't shock the world, but the Zero did. P-40s had an easier time with the Ki-43 for example.
    3
  44.  @apis_aculei  F4F finished WW2 7:1 against the zero, and even the Zero pilots themselves respected the F4F in a dogfight in the early South Pacific campaigns. Speed, firepower, and wingman tactics are superior to what the Zero brought to the table. Agility ceased being important the day the Hawker Hart entered service with the RAF. But Japan's Samurai mindset refused to accept this reality. It's just like how in a dogfight between a P-40 and a P-47, the P-40 pilot can't lose. You could replace the P-40 with an F6F, and F4U, etc, and the P-47 would still lose. Because while the P-47 is the superior fighter at high altitude, it can't kill the other planes unless it comes down to their altitude. And at those lower altitudes the P-47 can't defeat any of those airplanes in an even fight. This played out for real in state-side bar bets, where pilots of different types and branches of the military would dogfight 1-vs-1 to settle bets. the P-47s always lost, because their opponent would just keep the dogfight at low altitude where their airplanes were faster and more maneuverable than the P-47. What good is maneuverability if you can't catch your target? what good is maneuverability if you can't run away from your attacker? P-38s exemplified this. Zeros were at the mercy of US P-38s once the US pilots learned to stick with boom and zoom tactics. Speed controls the engagement in a dogfight, not maneuverability. And in real life combat, dogfighting is a team sport. And setting up your pilots to fight 1-vs-1 fights in a fight where your opponent is using team tactics, even if you brought the same number of airplanes to the fight as your opponent, is a guaranteed loss for you. War isn't fair, and when you lose in combat you don't get to claim it wasn't fair. Either you use what you have and you win, or you die.
    3
  45.  @TorontoJediMaster  Allied pilots were also more likely to be picked up over the channel I believe as well.
    3
  46. was it faster than the Mosquito? or the Typhoon? or the P-47?
    2
  47.  @ohger1  Yes, well said. And the Allisons with turbos at high altitude even outperformed the Merlins (P-38). Merlin/supercharger equipped P-38s would have performed worse than Allison/turbo P-38s. the Allison just never got a proper supercharger induction system developed for it that could be installed in standard fighters.
    2
  48.  @ricardobeltranmonribot3182  But the F8F, Sea Fury, P-51, P-38, etc. were/are used as racing planes. People claim the P-47 was faster and such. But if that were true they'd have used them as air racers. Fact is, the P-47 sucked terribly below 15k ft. A-36 was considered superior to the P-47 as a ground attacker. Faster and more maneuverable down low too. Also, Mustangs were sometimes equipped with 4x cannons which are better than 8x .50cal. But you can't compare a late war P-47 model to early war Planes. You need to compare them to other late war models, like the Ta-152, Spiteful, MB5, etc. Since the P-47N made as much contribution to the war as the P-80. You have to compare what was available in the period in question, not hypothetical scenarios about what would have happened had Germany held on for a few years longer. The P-47N was only used in the Pacific, and P-47s sucked in the pacific due to their inadequate low altitude performance. The Mustangs did the job faster, easier, cheaper, with less maintenance, and for much lower cost. And Mustangs also required less training and were more comfortable to pilots on long missions.
    2
  49. The F-107 was Not the first aircraft to go supersonic in level flight. the F-100 was the first Production aircraft to do that.
    2
  50. short range, poor climb, poor altitude performance, low quality production, high casualties, useless cannon, failed to sweep the skies of Ju-87 as the Western Allies had starting in 1940.
    2
  51. F11F-1F was far better
    2
  52. ​ @ChargedTTq  while I largely don't disagree with you, the FAA is still overbearing in many areas. They actually actively prevent proven safer and safety technologies from being installed, and they drive up costs excessively as well.
    2
  53. the title was about taking out the Iraqi Air Force on the ground (planes not tanks).
    2
  54.  @Burkutace27  but that wasn't the issue. the misunderstanding was thinking the F-15E took out the most tanks. If you have data to prove the F-111 took out the most aircraft on the ground, do share. Otherwise, stop making excuses for others, it doesn't reflect well upon you.
    2
  55. A-36 was said to be the best dive bomber of WW2 and very fast down low. Pilots that flew both the P-47 and A-36 in the attack role preferred the A-36.
    2
  56.  @brunopadovani7347  exactly, even early allied fighters in 1940 rendered the Stuka obsolete. Yet the Stuka thrived on the eastern front right until the Germans surrendered. Hans Rudel and his men surrendered in their Stukas.
    2
  57.  @specialman6004  But the P-39 started out very slightly better than the Zero in those areas, and improvements leading to the P-39Q (lighter, more horsepower, etc.), led to it improving a lot over the A6M later in the war. Also, US pilots even admitted judging the early P-39s overly harshly and unfairly. They were aggressive and wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor early on, and weren't patient enough or experienced enough yet to know how to use the P-39 effectively. US pilots fought too aggressively, when the P-39 and P-40 called for more patient tactics using altitude, speed/diving, superior numbers, and wingman tactics to defeat the more maneuverable Japanese fighters.
    2
  58. exactly. the Hellcat is overblown due to events like the Turkey shoot in which inexperienced pilots flew straight and level for the Hellcats to slaughter them by the hundreds. By war's end they were replacing all the hellcats with the older F4U.
    2
  59.  @raypurchase801  Yes. I've been guilty of that myself. But I agree that I much prefer having respectful discussions with people like yourself on these topics.
    2
  60.  @raypurchase801  liking a German aircraft doesn't make a person a Nazi. Everyone has their personal preferences, and have their engineering biases accordingly. You should see the reactions when I criticize the Hurricane or Typhoon. The worshippers come out of the woodwork, even though they never attack my claims with anything factual, only emotional. Same for Russian aircraft, or modern Chinese aircraft, US aircraft, etc. Most people like a particular aircraft for some reason (including for nothing more than aesthetics), and they get emotional when they find out it doesn't deserve the hero worship they heap upon it.
    2
  61. problem, after problem, after problem, after problem. Why do people like this plane so much? There were better ground attackers. There were better dogfighters. If speed was the goal, the Mosquito also existed. Almost anything else was more reliable. Engine failures for multiple reasons, finicky engine, complex startup, structural issues, firewall issues, etc. This is the Sopwith Camel of WW2 it would seem. More likely to die flying it than fighting the enemy.
    2
  62.  @lukeskywalker3329  Yes, but all out speed was rarely the objective in a given mission either, so my point is: What did the Typhoon do that was better than anything else, to justify the expenditure of time, material, personnel and such to continue fixing it rather than just putting that energy into other existing designs? To be fair, it's easy for me to judge in hindsight, but at the time no one could have predicted all the issues it would have. I'm more annoyed at how the Typhoon is so worshiped despite having done very little overall to justify such worship.
    2
  63.  @Onezmhu  Mig 15s were in Korea, as did ground fire also exist in Korea.
    2
  64.  @Newie69MK  Yes, once people learned of the Zero, upon seeing a Ki-43 they'd regularly mistake it for a Zero. Easy to do when detailed info like we have now wasn't available, and when you sometimes only get a few moments to observe some of the details of the design, and probably not from favorable angles. But the shock comes from mistaken identity, or from stupidly trying to outmaneuver it rather than sticking with Boom and Zoom tactics. Both are easy mistakes, even today. Just observe people playing WW2 simulators and watch them make the exact same mistakes constantly. But the Zero was objectively better in testing, the Japanese did dogfight them against each other. And The Zero's early victories soon evaporated as later models of the various designs came along that negated the early advantages. Did you know the P-39Q when rated at only 1200hp, had a 3k ft service ceiling advantage, a 50mph speed advantage, and a 700fpm climb rate advantage over teh Zero? And it's known the P-39Q engine was capable of 1700-2200hp. Imagine what an additional 500-1000hp would add to those numbers? P-39 in 1941 was at a disadvantage unless it came into the fight with superior altitude. But by late war, the P-39Q, F4F-4, P-40N were easily superior to the Zero (which had minimal to no real improvement over the course of the war). Japan simply lacked the resources and know-how at that time to make better engines. Also, only ~10k Zeros were built in teh war, where as many allied aircraft Each were built in comparable or greater numbers (F4U, F6F, F4F, P-40, P-51, P-47, P-38, P-39, Spitfire, etc). I find it fascinating how much myth and misunderstanding still surrounds the Zero. It's a fascinating airplane, with a fascinating story, it's fearsome reputation early on Was deserved, but it was not nearly as good as people try to claim by 1943 either. I've been studying it in great detail, and mostly from the Japanese perspective and sources.
    2
  65. And the F-15 was not designed to combat the Foxbat.
    2
  66. 370mph is still very slow for a WW2 fighter. Roll rate matters not when Boom and Zoom tactics are winning dogfights. A6M was maneuverable too, and it was easily outclassed.
    1
  67. what are the names of all those other exotic aircraft shown at the beginning of the video?
    1
  68. and the title is false too
    1
  69.  @recoil53  I'm not talking about modern 4th gen aircraft. I was talking about things like the B-58, F-100, F-86, Mig19, F-84, F-11 and many other jets that had very short lifespans between the end of WW2 and 1970. Evolution was rapid. Some lived long lives like teh F-8, F-4, A-6, and even the F-106.
    1
  70. he's always making tons of errors, never seems to learn.
    1
  71. The F6F development was well underway even before Pearl Harbor
    1
  72.  @lanfrancoadreani9212  Interesting, I did not know that. Haven't read up on the P.108 that much yet, only just became interested in it recently.
    1
  73. @Eastside Azskelad convergent evolution is a thing, in life as well as engineering. It seems there may have been some cross influence, but the planes are all different enough not to be copies of each other.
    1
  74. ~6yrs of war spanning the globe, involving 100s of millions of people..... many lifetimes worth of stories to be told and analyzed in context.
    1
  75.  @smithy2389  exactly, the Yak-9 was a mass produced hot mess. short range, reasonably fast but not even top 10 for speed, poor altitude performance, low quality, high casualties, etc. Couldn't even chase off the Stukas before Germany surrendered in 1945, like the Hurricane and Spitfire MkII were able to do in 1940. Can't be that great if it couldn't even render the Stuka obsolete in 1945. And even the US P-39Q outlasted the Yak-9 in USSR service, lasting into the 1950s.
    1
  76. It was a fighter Japan desperately needed, but not a war winner anymore than the Me262 was.
    1
  77. and claims the F4F was tougher than the P-47
    1
  78. Russians were Allies in name only. worst friends you can ever have. Enemy of my enemy is my friend, but still enemies. Sums up teh Russian's for me.
    1
  79.  @billycaspersghost7528  I agree. It was better in the attack role than other British options. But the engine reliability never seems to have been addressed. The Allison engine, which was first built in 1930 (8yrs before the Napier Saber) lives on even now in an FW190D9, multiple IL2, new Yak 3 and 9, and was boosted to 3,200hp in racing planes, used in racing boats, pulling tractors, etc. A much more reliable engine platform with more power potential. And after WW2 ended, Typhoons were ditched. But WW2 planes like the P-51, P-47, F4U, DeHavilland Hornet, Sea Fury, A-1 Skyraider, A-26, etc. lived on and fought in multiple other wars as late as the 1980s. To be totally fair, the Sea Fury is a direct descendent of the Typhoon. So without the Typhoon, the Sea Fury wouldn't have existed. Hawker Hart bomber became the Hawker Demon/Fury. The Fury became the Hurricane. The Hurricane became the Tornado The Tornado became the Typhoon The Typhoon became the Tempest The Tempest became the Tempest II The Tempest II became the Sea Fury I see the Typhoon as the Sopwith Camel of WW2. The Camel was highly regarded in history, but following the end of WW1, the Camels were very quickly ditched and the SE5a lived on. The Camels killed more of its own pilots than the Germans did. It filled a role, but it was a disaster of an airplane overall. Similarly the Typhoon killed its own pilots and was a load of trouble, but it was available and fit some roles enough to justify the casualties and high maintenance costs/time/resources it demanded.
    1
  80.  @jimdavis8391  Wrong. 2 things, 1) Close Air Support (CAS) - coordinated attacks with ground forces or ships in contact with the enemy. 2) Interdiction - striking railways, trains, supply convoys (trucks or ships), depots, etc behind enemy lines) the US helped develop things such as dive bombing. The Luftwaffe and their Blitzkrieg warfare model in Spain, Poland, France, and Russia is the basis of modern CAS. The Luftwaffe had the Ju-87, Hs129, anti-tank equipped FW190s, etc. But the Russians seemed to value CAS the most of anyone. But the US and UK definitely both excelled at CAS. The US with P-47 and P-38 in Italy, southern Europe, and Northern Europe, as well as the south pacific using rockets and bombs. Modified B-25 in the South Pacific. P-40 in the Pacific and Mediterranean. F4U was one of the best fighter bombers of WW2 (4-5k bomb/rocket/cannon load from a carrier deck) and arguably the best dive bomber of WW2. The P-51/A-36 was used to bomb and strafe many ground targets. The US used the Mosquitos as well. A-24 Banshee/SBD. A-1 Skyraider, Martin Mauler (both late to the party though). A-20 Havoc, A-26 Invader. And many more US examples. US was the best at interdiction and CAS overall in WW2. Russians were good at CAS. UK was good at CAS and Interdiction. Germans were famous for CAS. Italy and Japan sucked at CAS. Italy, Japan, Germany, and Russia all sucked at interdiction.
    1
  81. What about the Taranto Raid in 1940? What about the Russian Battleship Marat? USS Arizona? First airplane to sink a capital ship? Are you sure? Or am I missing something?
    1
  82.  @simoneales2568  Allison Mustangs were better at low altitude, and the Allison had much more horsepower at war's end than the Merlin (and was lighter), and still more post-war. And, the P-38 with allisons was better than a Merlin equipped P-38 would have been. With a turbocharger system, the Allison outperformed the Merlin at altitude. Merlin Mustang is still a wonderful machine, one of my favorites, but that doesn't mean it is god's gift to humanity either.
    1
  83. The F4U turned out to be a rather good dive bomber in WW2 and had a 4-5K bomb load (which Charles Lindbergh helped validate).
    1
  84.  @leonardmiyata482  Yup :) But it also used rockets, and could carry multiple smaller bombs, single larger bombs, etc. Had some decent flexibility for a fighter regarding loadout. I find the F4U to be the best all around fighter of WW2. Land/Carrier plane, fighter, ground striker, fast, maneuverable enough, tough, good range, served well after WW2 was over... Ta 152, P-51, Mosquito, A-26, are some others I admire greatly as well.
    1
  85. the A-36 was said to be the single best dive bomber of WW2, and at low altitudes was fast and capable of outmaneuvering pretty much anything else.
    1
  86.  @ricardobeltranmonribot3182  the F-86 was not used to replace the P-51 in Korea
    1
  87. Yet no P-47 air racers. Yet no P-47 used as fighter escorts in the Pacific. P-47 was a maintenance pig, harder to fly, more expensive, less overall range, and was easy to defeat below 15k ft. Pilots in teh US would do bar bets, and various pilots would dogfight for bragging rights, and the P-47 always lost. Even the P-40 could beat the P-47 below 15k ft. A-36 was also said to be the best dive bomber of WW2 and far better down low than the P-47 by those who flew both.
    1
  88.  @hurch1915  when you're plan is to get shot, sure. But a good pilot prefers to be the one doing the shooting.
    1
  89.  @ricardobeltranmonribot3182  precisely my point. If you can't discuss the F8F, Sea Fury, and others in WW2 context, then neither can you teh P-47N and other hypotheticals.
    1
  90.  @ricardobeltranmonribot3182  wow, you are all over the place. try picking an argument and sticking with it. you're a total spaz, and can't stay on topic.
    1
  91. he doesn't know crap about aviation adn proves it with every video
    1
  92. and claimed it was tougher than a P-47
    1
  93. the P-40 was also tough, not as much as the P-47, but very tough
    1
  94.  @jefferyroy2566  I pretty much already pointed that out. why is it that people like you comment on the people who know, rather than the people who Don't know? why tell someone something they already know?
    1
  95. Legendary liquid cooled ground attackers IL-2 Ju-87 A-36 Hawker Typhoon Mosquito Some A-36 pilots said the A-36 was better and safer than the P-47 as a ground attack aircraft.
    1
  96. Many early A model Mustangs and A-36 had 4x cannons.
    1
  97. F4F held the line initially and did well. even the Zero pilots respected the F4F in a dogfight. and the F4F enjoyed favorable kill ratio over the zero the entire war.
    1
  98.  @IllustriousUnknown416  useless? Then why did Russian pilots suffer such horrifically high losses? and Why did German pilots rack up such high kill tallies on the Eastern Front? Germans made easy work of the Russian made planes, including the IL-2. If you can't climb you can't control the fight. The Yaks were inferior down low to the P-51A, A-36, Typhoon, and others. Even the Hurricanes made easy work of the Stukas in 1940, when the still Yak-9 couldn't do it in 1945. Even the Russians used the P-39Q longer than they used the Yak-9. People criticized the P-40 due to its inferior climb performance against the A6M, it's lack of range, etc. (and the P-40 was not even as bad as people try to claim). But the Me109 was much the same as the Zero. It had superior maneuverability and climb performance to the Yak-9, and the Yak-9 suffered high losses accordingly. And unlike the Yak-9, the Me109 had cannons that worked well. Heck, even Stuka pilots were able to score aerial victories against Russian planes. And just like the Yak-9, the P-40 could out maneuver an Me109 at low altitude. And the Russians liked and used the P-40 a lot as well. But they still suffered high losses, while the Germans enjoyed high kill tallies. You say a lot, but none of it is worth much.
    1
  99.  @IllustriousUnknown416  Stukas were flying on the front lines right up until Germany surrendered. Hans Rudel's men flew they Stukas to the Western front to surrender even. Russia did not achieve a 1:1 kill ratio against Germany. not even close. German aces were slaughtering Russians the entire war. When those same top aces switched to fighting on the western front, they died quickly, or suffered mental breakdowns. A plane that doesn't climb well is a crap fighter. And just as the P-40, F6F, F4U, P-38s, and P-51s slaughtered maneuverable Japanese planes, the Me109 and FW190 could use their superior climb and altitude performance to dive on the Russians and get their kills, and then being able to climb away again to safety. You're idea of low altitude maneuverable fights is flawed and shows you don't understand the art of dogfighting. Those "obsolete" I-16 and such were also great at maneuvering and such, so how could they be obsolete according to you? Your claims are contradictory.
    1
  100. there are at least 2 or 3 replicas in flying condition.
    1
  101. The F-15 was not designed to counter the Foxbat, this has been debunked.
    1
  102. My thought as well.
    1
  103.  PDZ1122  Semantics. Wing loading is a function of lift. You are correct, but nor am i wrong. Yes, you aren't going to get good turn performance with a load of bombs strapped to the plane. I simply wasn't trying to write a long physics paper, just trying to keep the comment short and to the point.
    1
  104.  PDZ1122  My aren't you touchy. You're missing the point. I wasn't trying to start an aerodynamics discussion or debate. I was keeping it simple for those who care to know by don't know all the aerodynamics. Kind of like how we tell the Bernoulli lie about lift.
    1
  105. it wasn't Allisons mistake, it was the US gov's mistake.
    1
  106.  @flarvin8945  Vietnam was not Korea though, both regarding US politics, and regarding China. We know China wouldn't have backed Vietnam, they told Vietnamese leaders as much. There is a lot written on this already.
    1
  107.  @flarvin8945  wrong. China told Vietnam they wouldn't back them if it happened. Vietnam knew they would lose if the US went north. Would the North have resisted, sure, but not as effectively as they were before. The US never committed to invading North Vietnam though. It wasn't an official war, so it was never on the table. US involvement in Vietnam was solely for Johnson's personal political gains, and then others struggled to pull us out afterwards.
    1
  108.  @flarvin8945  yes, they gave limited support, but you're making assumptions based on your personal feelings, lacking enough info to know that the Chinese told Vietnam they would Not intervene above and beyond the support they were already providing. The US did not know this at the time of course. Vietnam was not Korea. Different time, different situation.
    1
  109.  @flarvin8945  Yes, but China still remembered the beating the US gave them in Korea. The Chinese hurt the US too, but not in the same way. China didn't want a repeat in Vietnam
    1
  110.  @flarvin8945  Well, there is your opinion, and then there are those who were in the meetings of Vietnam and China. I'm not taking your opinion. There was a lot more going on in the world at the time than just the Vietnam war to influence China's decision. Also, the US won every major battle of Vietnam despite the limited commitment, and it only took two weeks to end the war once the will was there. There was a military plan put forth by the Pentagon in the beginning that would have devastated North Vietnam in the first 6 months. But, since it was only a police action with no formal declaration of war, invading North Vietnam was not an option, so the plan was denied.
    1
  111.  @flarvin8945  The US didn't pull out because the "insurgency" won, they pulled out because we never should have been there to begin with. You are right, military might alone doesn't win a fight like this, but it is winnable, quite easily in fact (I have personal combat experience in this same sort of fight, and I am accomplished at it). Afghanistan was the same issue, lack of political commitment. In the military we all knew how to win, but try convincing those in charge to let us do what needed to be done (and it's not what you think). Actually, Vietnam would have gone Far Better for the US had we invaded all of Vietnam. Also, Vietnam was a Major transitionary time period for the US military. So comparing the Vietnam military to the US in Afghanistan is not an apples to apples comparison either. But you have no actions by China to support your claims. Vietnam was not the same circumstances as Korea. Different time, different war, different politics, different global situation. And while China is willing to throw away lives in combat, the Chinese military lost far more men in Korea than they are willing to admit. Doing the same thing in Vietnam would have ended in even higher casualties for china. You don't anticipate a different behavior because you lack understanding. Things are never so simple as they seem at these scales.
    1
  112.  @flarvin8945  Yes, many in the military don't get it, most fail to see the bigger picture. But the reason I disagree with you is because you are the one failing to see the Even larger picture. There is far more that was going on during the 1960s and 1970s than what you are trying to Massively oversimplify it down to. You should take your own advice. Take a Far deeper dive into this period of history, but look at everything. Look at Vietnam, China, Russia, US, other conflicts leading up to this one. History of how the US got involved. It is not Korea. Just because they did it once, why would they react the Exact same way again? And on top of that we know for a fact (hindsight, people who were there) that China was not going to invade. It was not like Korea where they were just saying it. There is more to consider here than your overly simplistic repetition of school textbook talking points. Look at the political environment, the economic environment, the technological environment... Actually the effective area needing to be controlled would have been smaller had the US gone north. The Insurgency would have been Far weaker had the US gone north. You clearly don't have a military mind.
    1
  113.  @flarvin8945  Yes, but it's apples to oranges. There was far more going on in the background. Also, Vietnam and China have had a sketchy relationship, even to this day. Whereas North Korea and China are Extremely close. It's clear your mind is made up, and you can think what you want, but your view is simplistic and ignores most of what was going on during that time that would influence China's decision.
    1
  114.  @flarvin8945  Yes, China commits troops when it feels threatened, like how India recently kicked their butts on the border. If the modern PLA can't handle India, they'd have had no chance against the US in the past. Why didn't China commit troops to Afghanistan? They share borders. Keep in mind Russia and China were fighting during the Vietnam conflict as well. No, I'm not oversimplifying things, I make that statement because I understand how an Occupation of the north would have changed the Entire dynamic of the war, and clearly you don't have the knowledge to understand that yet. For a Basic idea, think of France vs Germany in WW1, and then think of France vs Germany in WW2. Study guerilla wars, then study conventional wars like Korea, WW2, etc. Study the Art of War, learn about Logistics and strategy. But Also learn how agriculture, economics, global politics, and other non-battlefield factors impact the progression of a war. It's a start, but even after studying all that, you may still not understand why I'd rather fight in Vietnam while occupying the entire country vs only half (if I had to fight that war).
    1
  115.  @flarvin8945  I did not fail to account for that, i have Literally been stating this Whole time the US's goal was not to invade the North. It was a police action, not a declaration of war, hence why we never went north. You seriously need to pay attention. However, had war been declared, going north would have been the right move, no question, and would have made the guerilla war in Vietnam far harder to conduct for the North and China. China got us by surprise in Korea, and it was a UN action, not merely a US action. The will to fight in Korea wasn't there in the US. We got dragged into a fight the public didn't support or understand. But that was a winnable war. But the US was still dealing with the aftermath of WW2, was distracted, and fighting the last war. But we still bloodied China far more than they bloodied us, not even a close. What straw am I grasping at, Exactly? And china's actions show that many times since Korea they have not responded to actions in bordering nations with troops. Afghanistan was a US/NATO occupation with zero Chinese response. They have however invaded weak neighbors like Tibet. I too judge China on their actions, such as cultural and ethic genocide, mass murder, and mass starvation. What has China done militarily since Korea? Attacked helpless nations and people, that's all. Occupying the north makes an insurgency by the north easy to manage and control. Same as in Afghanistan. Not occupying the north game them a base, manufacturing, SAMs, airbases, tanks, etc. All of that would have been gone. You claim I am naïve, but you don't even understand the most basic aspects of warfare. Just read the Art of War if nothing else.
    1
  116.  @flarvin8945  "I am not naïve enough to believe China would sit back let the USA invade north Vietnam without doing anything. ", but that is 100% predicated merely on your ASSUMPTION that you are correct, contrary to all evidence from those who held the decision making authority at the time. I think you are very naïve. It's not grasping at straws. You claim to base your opinions on china's actions, and I cited examples of there actions, or lack there of. You think China would have stopped the US, despite the modern PLA being unable to take on lesser nations who fight back. China acts, i watch, and I take notes. And you reject anything that doesn't support your argument, and dismiss anything that contradicts your argument. If the US invaded and controlled North Vietnam, there isn't much the north could accomplish by being "pushed closer to China", since they would have no country to control, and no power with which to snuggle up to China with. Once they are occupied, there is no more north vietnam. You seem to fail to grasp elementary concepts of warfare here. I could teach children these things and they'd understand them better than you. Go ahead and live in ignorance, I don't care. "Your claim does not even stand on face value. The Vietnam war already taxed USA military resources enough that a draft was required to maintain adequate troop levels." Not true at all. The draft was due to a lack of public support for the conflict. Our military was still strong and capable even at the worst periods. "So by your logic, added more territory to protect, with a significantly more hostile population and positioning a far more powerful opponent to the north to have to guard against." Again, you clearly lack an understanding of warfare, and how an occupation completely changes everything. The North would be gone, relegated to guerilla infantry and nothing more, losing all their agriculture, manufacturing, technological support, and access to China except by attacking from China across the vietnam border. No tanks, no SAMs, no jets, no AAA sites, no trucks, etc. McArthur was an idiot, but he still understood warfare better than you.
    1
  117.  @flarvin8945  You really think, the US military, who took on Japan and Germany at the same time, couldn't handle one measly Asian country? Wrong. You completely misunderstand the entire nature of that conflict, and Why it went the way it did. Go ahead think what you want. It's people like you and nations who think like you that we need not fear. You keep using that term (naïve), i don't think it means what you think it means. You're like a broken record, or a kid who found a new favorite word.
    1
  118.  @flarvin8945  You're ridiculous. I'll let the public decide who they feel is closer to the truth.
    1
  119.  @flarvin8945  you are not worth the trouble of arguing with. You don't listen, you're not smart enough to understand anything I'm saying, or you're just trolling. You talk about things you clearly know next to nothing about. Enjoy believing whatever you like. Letting the public decide does make sense. More evidence you're not very smart if you can't figure out what that means.
    1
  120. Most Mustangs used US Allisons, or US Packard Merlins that were better than RR Merlins.
    1
  121. and later models of the P-40 (N) and P-39 (Q), were able to, or capable of, fighting these Japanese airplanes. The P-40N was able to reach as high as 420mph pushing its engines to 1700hp+, for example.
    1
  122. the F-18 is/was Not the top standard for fighter agility
    1
  123.  @kirkmorrison6131  When did the P-39 face enemies that flew higher than it? japanese aircraft fought low. Eastern front was fought down low. The P-39 was actually better when it was above its prey.
    1
  124.  @kirkmorrison6131  Yes, because the P-39s were sent on missions at low altitude and the F4Fs were sent at higher altitudes. Had this been reversed the P-39 would have done even better than it did. The P-39 in the south pacific had a positive kill ratio over japanese planes, even fighting from low altitude. The P-39 had as good or better service ceiling than Japanese aircraft. you're only displaying you ignorance of the reality if this very issue, which has been documented in Detail on youtube videos, and perpetuating lies. What the pilot told you was true, but lacked context.
    1
  125. unrelated, but we like to think so. The P-40Q was the final evolution of the P-40.
    1
  126. people who care about truth, facts, and accuracy. so many lies and false info in this, starting with the title and the thumbnail.
    1
  127.  @ohwell2790  why are you so angry? these basic facts are so elementary that I know kids who know more than this guy does. Don't post stuff online if you can't take the heat.
    1
  128.  @ohwell2790  The Japanese actually had some FW190s, and the US used the P-47 in the Pacific.
    1
  129. 0:45 when did F4F wildcats explode into pieces from a dogfight? I'd like to see some footage of that. At the very least some first hand accounts of it happening.
    1
  130. there is more to the Mustang's speed than that.
    1
  131.  @Frankie5Angels150  both the Allison and Merlin are inline V-12 engines. they each have two rows of 6 inline cylinders. Radials are air cooled because their cylinders are not inline, so each can get cooling air while minimizing preheat from teh other cylinders. But the later war super radials were liquid cooled becasue there got to b so many rows of cylinders it was no longer possible to air cool them, and at that point they lined up all the banks of cylinders into inline configurations. This is why inlines are always liquid cooled though, due to the inability to air cool the rear most cylinders. Putting them into two rows of 6 instead of 1 row of 12, doesn't make it cease being an inline engine. V, H, X, and others are just different forms of inline engines.
    1
  132. wrong. many famous german aces were killed, or shot down by mustangs
    1
  133. Don't forget the IL-2, Ju-87, Mosquito, and many more legendary ground attack aircraft.
    1
  134.  @surplus2720  Wrong. The US developed some of the most amazing aircraft in the 10yrs after WW2, not to mention lots of serious progress was made in the advancement of aeronautical knowledge in the US. Some of it was German inspired, most of it was not. The US brought about the lost period of lasting peace in human history following WW2. Elements within the US may be causing problems, but the US on the whole has been good for the world overall (until recently). The Germans would have advanced even less had they won the war. In fact, UK made far more significant contributions to the advancement of aerospace during and after WW2 than the Germans did or would have. UK could have been the first to Mach 1, could have been the first to put a man in outer space (beating Russia by probably 10yrs), etc.
    1
  135.  @AaronCMounts  the F-20 was more like the F-16 than it was the YF-17.
    1
  136. In turning, the Zero was best. A-36 was arguably the best dive bomber and ground attack aircraft of WW2, and that was said by pilots who flew both the A-36 and P-47.
    1
  137.  @ricardobeltranmonribot3182  Wow. You never specified allied aircraft only, and the SBD was in NO WAY the best dive bomber of WW2. you have zero objectivity here. This is purely your emotional opinions, not based on fact. SBD was slow and vulnerable, and less accurate than the A-36. A-36 was crazy fast at lower altitudes and could dogfight the best. it was in no way obsolete, they simply flew every last airframe until they ran out of parts to keep them flying. only a few hundred were ever built.
    1
  138. Everything could beat the P-47 at low altitude
    1
  139.  @scottinohio701  many of those aces also flew P-51s. P-47 still lacked the overall range even with drop tanks. And P-47 were far more expensive and maintenance intensive. How come the P-47 was never used as a fighter escort in Pacific? How come the P-51 far outlasted the P-47 after WW2 even in the hands of foreign nations?
    1
  140.  @scottinohio701  2 aces? but the Top 2 US aces flew Allison powered P-38s, not P-47. P-47 was used longer, proves nothing. P-47N wasn't used in Europe, and existed too late to matter. Same with the Spiteful, MB.5, CA-15, Ta-152, Hornet, F8F, P-38K, F2G, N1K2-J, A7M, Ki-94, P-80 and others. You like to yell a lot, chill dude, before you have a stroke.
    1
  141.  @scottinohio701  90% of all air to air kills? what about the F6F having more kills than the P-47 and more aces? What about the Russian's at low altitude? How many of those kills were bombers, scored by Me109s? Why was the only ETO medal of honor given to a P-51 pilot (a Flying Tiger no less)? What's your point?
    1
  142.  @scottinohio701  Wow. Not too bright are you. I made no mention of the P-51 in my first comment. My second comment, directed at you did reference the P-51 to which you admitted all but two of the pilots you listed flew Mustangs in Europe. F6F WAS in the ETO and scored kills too. Better brush up on your history. But since the F6F killed more aircraft and was cheaper than even the P-51, clearly it was the best fighter according to your metrics. I'm not going off on tangents, merely addressing your ridiculous claims with counter arguments. And you're also not addressing my questions.
    1
  143. The XP-55 was not an exception, take the Kyūshū J7W Shinden as an example. Also, the very first successful airplane was a forward canard, the Wright Flyer. There were tons of other weird and wacky designs from all sides in WW2.
    1
  144.  @specialman6004  that's not true. The A6M didn't really improve at all the entire war. The P-39Q had higher service ceiling, higher climb rate, higher top speed. Used with boom and zoom tactics and wingman tactics the P-39Q was a Zero killer. A6M had anemic climb compared to most late war fighters, and no prop fighter outclimbs the F8F bearcat.
    1
  145. but all the Germans had to do was use altitude. The Russian planes tended to suck at altitude.
    1
  146.  @tomcrouchman  when did I claim the F4F was superior to the F6F? I don't know what you read, but it certainly wasn't anything I wrote.
    1
  147.  @tomcrouchman  Who claimed Wildcats were replaced by Hellcats by war's end? you really are on confused individual. Your reading comprehension level is stuck in elementary school. Try reading what was actually written, instead of making up nonsense.
    1
  148. wrong. P-47 is surely the toughest hands down. IL-2 is a good case as well, but the hellcat is not. Hellcat was overblown. It wasn't bad, and it was better than the F4F and a clear advantage over the Zero, but not nearly as good as the F4U. The F6F was retired immediately following the war, replaced by F4U which soldiered on.
    1
  149. Ju-87, IL-2, Hawker Typhoon/Tempest, A-36...
    1
  150.  @raypurchase801  Sure, but those aircraft were related only in company name. The other aircraft shared parts and or design elements of the aircraft that preceded them. The Demon/Fury were literally 1-seat versions of the Hart. The Hurricane was a Fury with a new wing and enclosed canopy. The Tornado was a Hurricane with a new canopy and engine, and changes to the wing. The Typhoon was a further modified Tornado, with a new engine. The Tempest was a modified Typhoon. The Tempest II was a modified Tempest The Sea Fury was a modified Tempest II Direct evolutionary lineage from the Hart all the way to the Sea Fury, each design carrying elements from the previous. The Sea Fury is a direct descendant of the Hawker Hart Bomber. Even though they look and perform nothing alike. But the Hawker Harrier, for example, is a clean sheet design. No connection of any kind to the Sea Fury.
    1
  151.  @raypurchase801  "Some people reading your comment might be confused by your mention of the Tornado. Very few of us nerds will actually understand it." Perfect opportunity for them to learn then 😉 Yes, far too many people overlook simplicity, reliability, ruggedness, and ease of maintenance in designing for warfare. Yes, lessons learned from the past Hawker aircraft influenced later designs, no doubt. But, name one piece of the Hawker Hart to Hawker Sea Fury set of aircraft that is in a Hunter or Harrier (other than bolts/rivets and other such hardware)? The previous aircraft in the lineage literally shared certain parts with each other. There was overlap in their designs. the Hunter, Harrier and such did not. That is my point.
    1
  152.  @raypurchase801  and I agree with that too. we're just making separate, though related, points.
    1
  153. F-16 pulling a Cobra....
    1
  154.  @tltc191  literally Everything was better than a P-47 below 15k ft
    1
  155. How come the USAF didn't use P-47s as fighters in the Pacific? Because they suck at low altitude.
    1
  156. people in the comments know more than this guy does. all his videos are like this
    1
  157. XP-77? not operational but very small. There were so many fighters in WW2 it's never wise for these people to make such claims in their videos, but they keep doing it.
    1
  158.  @kingwein89  You clearly don't understand the fundamentals of air combat. F4F and P-40 finished WW2 with more kills than losses against japanese aircraft. Your "facts" are false. You get tired of hearing about it, because it doesn't fit your narrative. You want certain things to be true, even when they aren't. Sakai and other Japanese pilots didn't think much of the early P-40 and P-39 models, but the later models did much better. And the Japanese wholly acknowledged that the P-38, F6F, P-51, etc, completely owned them in the skies. I'll take their word over yours. A few elite pilots can generally win no matter what. But that doesn't make one plane objectively better. Maneuverability doesn't matter in WW2 air combat, speed, climb rate, altitude and range did. But in dogfight, speed, climb rate and team tactics were what mattered to survive.
    1
  159. why do people always conflate high casualties with "success"?
    1
  160. Yet the A-10 to this day is constantly criticized for not being supersonic capable, yet no other subsonic attacker is likewise criticized, and even as military studies also proved subsonic was better.
    1
  161.  @edenfeledrum1540  elaborate on that difference. as the arguments specify subsonic.
    1
  162.  @edenfeledrum1540  that is the primary argument I hear against it, claiming it can't survive due to subsonic speeds. Still waiting for you to differentiate between "slow" and "subsonic" and how the two are different in regards to air combat and the A-10.
    1