Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Dark Skies"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1