Best Heavy Fighter

[J.A.W.]

No 'hatred' whatsoever for radial mills..

They make perfectly adequate bomb-truck & transport mills,
where a dedicated flight engineer can pamper them.

Its just a matter of fact  - that they are not so good for fighter use..

For example, check that Tempest data sheet I posted..

If you look - the most economical cruising speed delivered by the Sabre is
fairly close to the max continuous speed listed for the R-2800 fighters..

& the Sabre gives a max continuous cruise of ~100mph faster than the R-2800s, as does the Merlin in the P-51..

An analogy is Euro sports cars vs US muscle cars, or putting a truck engine in a race car, they'll work, but just not as well..

[Tank-Ace]

T-A, do you read the posted info?

The RAF could've had P-38's for free via lend lease..

But they had no requirement for a 3rd rate USAAF cast off..

[Hell,  they didn't even want the 2nd rate USAAF P-47 for ETO service]

Because..in REALITY..

Typhoon was  superior for A2G.

Tempest & Spitfire were superior for A2A.

Mustang was superior for long range escort.

Mosquito was superior for intruder/medium bomber..

Got it  - now?

No, you're explaining it poorly  .

[J.A.W.]

Well, sorry - for not being a teacher specialised in training 'tards.. L.O.L...

[Rino]

     Wondering what kind of brainiac thinks a water cooled engine is better for air to ground than a
radial?   

[J.A.W.]

Stalin, for one..

Like to see you tell him he's wrong..L.O.L.

[Brooke]

Not for P-38s in the ETO, since they were in the 9th Tactical AF..

So, the mission specific comparison is valid.

No, you are changing your own line of argument.  You said that the P-38 is a poor fighter in the overall ETO -- poor in the 8th AF for its entire deployment therein and now arguing poor in the 9th TAF as well.  I and others countered with, no, it is a decent fighter overall, good at long-range escort, excellent at very-long-range fighter operations, and great in the fighter-bomber role.

You said that the P-38 was a poor fighter in the ETO.  That is incorrect.

Note that plane A being better than plane B does not mean that plane B is bad.

 'Cept of course Tempests weren't tasked with that P-38 medium bomber role, since the RAF had Mosquitos for that gig..

As pointed out several times, whatever 100 airplanes out of 10,000 were used for is irrelevant.

[Oldman731]

No, you are changing your own line of argument. 

A lot of people here are being eaten by the troll.

Just thought I'd mention that.

- oldman

[J.A.W.]

No, you are changing your own line of argument.  You said that the P-38 is a poor fighter in the overall ETO -- poor in the 8th AF for its entire deployment therein and now arguing poor in the 9th TAF as well.  I and others countered with, no, it is a decent fighter overall, good at long-range escort, excellent at very-long-range fighter operations, and great in the fighter-bomber role.

You said that the P-38 was a poor fighter in the ETO. 


Brooke,
do kindly note: - each of that those 100+ expensively converted [ who paid I wonder - Lockheed - perhaps, desperate to 'stay in the game' ETO-wise?] Droop Snoot P-38s led a unit of regular P-38s on medium bomber missions,
AFAIK, no other fighters in the ETO went that far from the A2A or F.B. role..

The reason? P-38 loss rates in F.B. roles..

The P-38 was squeezed out of the prime 8th AF glamour role - by the P-51,
& played 2nd fiddle to the P-47 in the 9th TAF, too

This clearly makes it the 3rd string USAAF fighter in A2A or A2G roles in the ETO..

Nor did the RAF or Soviets want them..

Simple reason, & backed by the stats..
 [ even for Big Week - when the P-38 had the chance to show it was better than the 'new kid on the block' P-51 in the 8th AF]..

The P-38 simply could not compete favourably, against the LW, or the P-51 for ETO service in the USAAF or RAF, in A2A or F.B. roles..

&, 'poor' is a harsh term, but - yes it is a fact, that while the P-38
did do well in the PTO, - in the max-intensity ETO, it truly was an also-ran..

 

[J.A.W.]

A lot of people here are being eaten by the troll.

Just thought I'd mention that.

- oldman

Beaten down by cruel harsh reality oldman,
I guess its a real bummer when a fantasy bubble pops in your face, eh?
& gotta reach for the T-word cheap shot when you aint got nothin'..

[J.A.W.]

Who'll be 1st to post the USAAF ETO kill/loss ratios for A2A & A2G?

Here's a chance to show just where the P-38 stands against its direct brethren.

I'll find & post the 8th AF Big Week stats shortly..

[J.A.W.]

This site has some interesting info, & those P-38s were kinda pricey..

http://www.usaf.net/digest/t.82.htm

How does this sound, P-38 in ETO: 1,758 losses vs 1,771 victory claims..

& 8th AF Big Week..

P-47: 11 F.G.s claim - 78 e/a.
P-51:  2  F.G.s claim - 64 e/a.
P-38:  2  F.G.s claim - 10 e/a.

[Brooke]

Brooke,
do kindly note: - each of that those 100+

Again, whatever is done with 100 planes out of 10,000 is irrelevant to this discussion.  For all I know, 17 of the 1700 Tempests made were turned into couriers for high-priority mail.  That doesn't make the Tempest a mail cargo plane, and it doesn't matter at all to the discussion of whether or not the Tempest was a good fighter plane.

The P-38 was ...

Yes, the P-51 was better suited to its ETO role, but again, plane A better than plane B doesn't make plane B bad.  The P-38 was not a poor fighter plane.

My point is not that the P-51 or P-47 were worse planes.  They weren't.  They were better in some ways (although not all ways).  My point is that the P-38 was a good fighter.

The P-38 simply could not compete favourably, against the LW, or the P-51 for ETO service in the USAAF or RAF, in A2A or F.B. roles..

As long as "favorably" in this context means "hold its own", the P-38 could and did compete favorably with LW planes in air-to-air combat, not just in the ETO but also in the MTO and North Africa.  And it certainly was a very good aircraft as a fighter bomber -- better than the P-51, Spitfire, and Bf 109 in that role.

in the max-intensity ETO, it truly was an also-ran..

And still was a good fighter, a very good long-range escort, and an excellent fighter bomber in the ETO.

[Tank-Ace]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

[Brooke]

How does this sound, P-38 in ETO: 1,758 losses vs 1,771 victory claims..

There you have it -- proof that the P-38 was just as good as Bf 109's and FW 190's.

(And this leaves out many mitigating circumstances in the use of P-38's, such as fuel qualities for the P-38 being botched, level of experience of those P-38 pilots being far less than the LW pilots they faced, and often times the P-38's being outnumbered by the attacking LW planes because the few P-38's were the only fighters that could make it far enough in the earlier days.  In contrast, later P-51's were there when fuel problems were worked out, when a great number of experienced LW pilots had been lost, and when the allies had enormous numerical superiority in most fights.)

[J.A.W.]

Brooke,
Those Droop Snoots didn't fly alone you know,
& those were mass-type medium bomber missions..

Tempests  never flew them..

& No, P-38s were superior to LW twin engine types in A2A combat,

109s & 190s, not so much..

& try as you will to find wriggle room for the P-38, but Doolittle knew better..