Best Heavy Fighter

[Ack-Ack]

Does anyone know if a P-38 ever tested that fierce-looking quad Hispano
nose fit out? Would've doubled the fire-power of the standard P-38..

Not that I'm aware of.  There were some field mod tests of P-38s with more than 4 .50 cals, I think one field test had 8 .50 calibers.  In any case, the P-38 didn't need an increase in firepower, it's guns were more than enough to do the job.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

 The probable primary reason for `51H non-employment in Korea is simply a matter of availability/logistics, & the same - likely - applies to the F8F.. 

No, the primary reason, as already stated, the H model was more vulnerable to ground fire than the D model was and was not suited for the combat missions it would have been tasked with. 

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

What is your ETOH blood level currently T-A?

Are you drunk  - or simply purblind?

If you really want to play the 'Lets have fun with the name' - game

Would you mind awfully - if I ask nicely  -  does T-A represent Tanked-Arse?

[J.A.W.]

A.A. since the Mustang H was significantly faster than the D/K, & was powered by essentially the same mill/cooling arrangement, the H was very probably less vulnerable to flak..

& if you do not understand logistics, look it up..

..since the `51D losses in Korea alone would've come close to the
 complete total of `51H Mustangs available to the USAF at the time..

[J.A.W.]

A.A. the RAF [& the USN] felt 4 X 20mm Hispano were the right fit for a heavy fighter, [ & the USN rated the Hispano to be worth three 0.5in MGs]..

But then again, the RAF didn't want P-38s anyway..

[Randy1]

Keep in mind at the end of the war airplane malefactors would have an eye on business after the war.  The best designers would have already been moved to post war projects.  The light weight mustang construction as an example was probably a manufacturing test bed for future projects at tax payers expense.

[bozon]

But then again, the RAF didn't want P-38s anyway..

What would the RAF use the P-38s for?
At the time it was available, the RAF was bombing at night, defending against the LW at night and day fighter fighter/bomber force was operating at relatively short ranges. The P-38 was not meant to be a night fighter and at short ranges A2G and A2A, Typhoons and Spitfires were very good and cheaper alternative. Photo-recon and long range attack was already well covered by the Mosquitoes.

Eventually, the RAF did need some long range fighters and they got a few Mustang squadrons for that - the P-51 was initially built especially for the British. So why would they buy more expensive P-38s to do just this work? It is not that they found the P-38 incapable, it just did not fit them. OK, there is this story about them trying out early 38s without handed engines, but I am sure they were aware of the American models and their performance, which for 1943 was very good.

The P-38 was excellent for the Americans that operated in a completely different way than the RAF and did not have Typhoons and Mosquitoes. Its multi-role talent allowed them to plug a few holes in their roster simultaneously - from photo-recce through long range escort to ground attack. The P-38 was easily the best suited land-based fighter for the Pacific.

[Brooke]

I don't mind digging the dirt to 'demolish'[ as Widey put it] the P-38 myth..

I didn't notice any demolishing of any myths about the P-38.  All that was established was:
-- It was a decent plane at air-to-air combat.
-- It was a great plane for ground attack.
-- It was a very sturdy plane.
-- It had very long range.
-- It was used a lot in all theaters.
-- P-51's replaced it and P-47's in the ETO escort role not because P-38's or P-47's were bad (they weren't) but because people judged the P-51 to be a better fit.
-- Most comments from pilots who flew both the P-38 and P-51 are that the P-38 was good but that the P-51 was a better choice for the ETO role.
-- It is a reasonable inclusion in a list of candidates for best heavy fighter and best fighter-bomber in AH.

[J.A.W.]

The ETO was, without doubt, the toughest combat zone of the WW2 air-war, both in scale & in technological development terms.

The LW & RAF duked it out from start to finish, & the USAAF weighed in with its massive strength from 'bout 1/2 way through..

The LW found that fighter combat on the eastern front, as the USAAF did in the PTO - to be more of a battle against operating conditions - but a bit of a 'rest cure' in combat intensity terms.

The RAF & USAAF had to put their very best fighters up against the LW, & the LW kept their very best units [ i.e. JG 26] equipped with their top aircraft -in the west to oppose them.

Aircraft which had good - or even excellent - records  in lesser theatres of operation were found wanting in the ETO.

The RAF, through lend-lease, freely had their pick of US aircraft..

They gratefully received & operated their carefully evaluated choice of them..

The Soviets demanded P-51s - & were turned down.

The RAF solely wanted P-51s - from USAAF types - for ETO fighter combat..

They usefully operated their P-47s against the Japanese.

They didn't find a role for P-38s..

Neither did the Soviets...yet they really liked the Bell birds..

The USAAF rated [& combat stats confirmed] the P-38 as their 3rd ranked fighter in the ETO, although it had a fine record in the PTO..

Of an ETO [ inc' Soviets] list of the top ten fighters..
& - based on A2A combat performance attributes - the P-38 might,- just squeak in there - but [very] close to the bottom of the list..

[Tank-Ace]

What in god's name is wrong with you?


If you're talking  A2A capabilities (in general, not just at ultra-high 30+K alt), the top 10 fighter list would likely be comprised of the following, in no particular order.


P-51B
F4U-1A
P-38L
Bf 109G-10
Fw 190D-9
La-7
Some later model Spitfire (the XII? or XVI?)
Tempest
Yak-9U
P-47M

Based on overall combat capabilities, the P-38L would likely be superior to aircraft like the Yak-3, and Tempest, if for no other reason than its superior high altitude performance, greater combat endurance, and larger load of ammunition.

[J.A.W.]

T-A, still hungover, huh?

Give it some more thought,
 & come back with some actual fact-based parameters..

Like Vmax, Vne, climb, dive & zoom speeds, turn radius , roll rate,
fire-power, combat vision, engine management/user friendliness & etc..

For example, from the invasion to VE-day both the P-38 & Tempest were
tasked with tactical operations, & the Tempest bagged every type of LW jet & FW long-nose flying, while the P-38 did not..

Do you think performance attributes might've had something to do with that?

Well, duhh..

[Karnak]

Given how the Tempest bagged its Ta152, I'd say luck to simply encounter Ta152s had a lot to do with it as well for that one.

[J.A.W.]

& if it had been 1-on-1 P-38 vs Ta 152,
 the P-38 would've needed  luck a plenty - even with Dick Bong aboard..

& don't forget, the Tempest units were kept busy from June to Sept `44
stopping 800+ V 1 cruise missiles from hammering down on London..

The P-38 didn't have the performance to do that gig either..

[MiloMorai]

come back with some actual fact-based parameters.. jaw

Like Vmax, Vne, climb, dive & zoom speeds, turn radius , roll rate,
fire-power, combat vision, engine management/user friendliness & etc..

add number available, shoot downs per sortie (+/-), number of sorties.....

Not that we will get an answer from jaw.

btw tank-Ace jaw means to talk a lot but don't say much

[J.A.W.]

Too funny [as usual] M.M.,

& you do know what irony means, don't you?

Your last post is a perfect  example,  - if you don't know..

& since you want to play the 'name game' - like your little buddy T-A,

Mickey Mouse, is apt, indeed..

Put up , or shut up..