Best Heavy Fighter

[J.A.W.]

See Rules #2, #4

[Ack-Ack]

Of course the USAAF controllers determined that to keep the P-38 loss rates in check, they ought to be given the medium bomber gig..
 
.

Why do you keep repeating this myth that you've been unable to back up with any proof?  The P-38 was not relegated to the 'medium bomber' gig at all nor does the fact some P-38s were converted to Droop Snoots make your claim true.  Show the orders from the USAAF stating that due to losses, the P-38 was going to be relegated for the rest of the war as a medium bomber. 

Do yourself a favor and read about why the Droop Snoot idea came about, it had nothing do with the loss rate of the P-38 and everything to do with the loss rate the 8th AF bombers were suffering at the time.

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

A.A., I ask, why are you purblind to the reality of the D.S. program?

Why don't you post the D.S. mission stats,
& if they were negligible in terms of O/A P-38 ops flown in same the time frame fine.. but then that begs the question, why go to all that cost & bother..
-more D.S. conversions than total Whirlwind production..

& you were wrong about the deleted turbos on the Brit ordered Lightning/322s.

It was the US Gov't who deleted them [too secret] & then the performance was so lame the Brits said 'keep 'em for yourselves'..

Later, the Brits had their pick of US planes, free via lend-lease, & they wanted Mustangs, even the Allison powered types [which they kept in ETO service through VE -day] & F4U/F6F types - but not P-38s - of any kind..

[J.A.W.]

Here's what P.Clostermann, Free French fighter ace reckoned re P-38..

From 'Flames in the Sky' P.103,

"...it was never as good as the P-51, or even that big brute the P-47 Thunderblot. A very few pilots...took on the standard single-engine fighters successfully, thanks to a special & difficult team-work technique, but they
were exceptions.
 
At Fassberg in 1945 I saw a combat film of Hans Phillip shooting down the 4 Lightnings of a section one after the other.

It might have given budding P-38 pilots something to think about, but luckily the war was over."

& A.A., 
Do kindly explain how taking P-38 fighters off-line to modify them for the medium bomber role has any thing to do with 8th AF strategic ops..

In fact it may well have more to do with P-51s arriving in sufficient numbers
to displace the `38 from its [ 'poor'] escort performance yet still find some 1/2 -way useful employment for them.

Indeed a fair old effort was being put into bombing the V1 launch sites 'round about then, & since the P-38 was - for sure - too slow as a fighter to catch V1s in flight, well then, finding a relatively low loss rate way of making a meaningful contribution  - via medium bombing - likely seemed reasonable..

P-47s [also displaced from the 8th AF - but for the 56th F.G.] had the real down & dirty 9th AF tactical A2G role sewn up..

[Karnak]

Hans Priller vs four unknown, probably relatively inexperienced, P-38 pilots that it seems he bounced is not exactly a clinical evaluation of the relative merits of the P-38 and the fighter he was flying.

[J.A.W.]

Goes to the fact - that bunnies [novice pilots] & P-38 were a 'poor' combo..

Although, to be fair - Clostermann was frank 'bout the Brit heavy fighters he flew, Typhoon & Tempest - not being the pick for bunnies either..

[J.A.W.]

After a successful tour flying Spits, Clostermann returned to combat status,
 & experienced pilots were wanted for the Tempest Wing..

Clostermann found a Typhoon test flight a bit of a handful, but commented..

"I realized with satisfaction that as far as speed was concerned this was much better than a Spitfire. What would it be like in a Tempest!"

& when the Kiwi Spitfire unit 485 Sqd, was transitioning to Tempests,
one pilot commented that he "found the ASI difficult to believe"..
..but not because the accuracy was out - like an "over 500mph" P-38,
but only 'cause of what he was used to seeing in his Spit XVI..

[MiloMorai]

& when the Kiwi Spitfire unit 485 Sqd, was transitioning to Tempests,
one pilot commented that he "found the ASI difficult to believe"..
..but not because the accuracy was out - like an "over 500mph" P-38,
but only 'cause of what he was used to seeing in his Spit XVI..

No 485 Squadron RNZAF

Formed as the first New Zealand fighter squadron in the UK on 1 March 1941 at Driffield.  It was equipped with Spitfire Is and remained in No 12 Group in Yorkshire until July when it moved south to Redhill, where it began to take part in offensive sweeps and Circus operations.

In October 1941 it moved to Kenley and operated from there and later Kingscliffe until October 1942, when it was sent to Northern Ireland for a rest, returning to Kingscliffe, still equipped with Mk V Spitfires the following month.

From July 1943, equipped with Spitfire IXs, it operated as part of the Biggin Hill Wing and from October as part of the Hornchurch Wing but this was short-lived as the following month it was sent to Drem in Scotland, where it remained (using Spitfire Vs) until Mar 1944.

Its return south coincided with the build up for Overlord and equipped with Spitfire IXs again, it joined No 135 Airfield on 28 March 1944.  Initially based at Hornchurch, No 135 Airfield, later renamed No 135 Wing, carried out dive bombing and tactical reconnaissance sorties prior to during and following the D-Day landings.

In August 1944 No 485 moved over to the continent and followed 21st Army Group through Belgium and Holland until February 1945.  It was then brought back to the UK to re-equip with Tempests, although these were replaced in March by Typhoons and then in April Spitfire XVIs returned and the squadron returned to the continent, where it remained until disbanding at Drope on 26 August 1945.

[Karnak]

Goes to the fact - that bunnies [novice pilots] & P-38 were a 'poor' combo..

Although, to be fair - Clostermann was frank 'bout the Brit heavy fighters he flew, Typhoon & Tempest - not being the pick for bunnies either..

No, it is completely meaningless and useless.

Should we evaluate the F4U based on Hiroyoshi Nishizawa's first encounter with one?  Does that mean the A6M3 was better because he shot the F4U down?

Using an ace's, in anything, combat against anything as evidence of that thing's inadequacy is useless and trying to do so shows that you either don't understand basic things or that you are willing to make disingenuous statements if you think it might help you "win".

[J.A.W.]

"Meaningless & Useless"?

Not at all,
since Clostermann rightly made his point from an insiders [experienced pilot] perspective.

However, the USAAF ( Colonel Rau) wrote an official report on the P-38 being a handful for
inexperienced fliers, & cited this as a contributing reason for preferring the Mustang in 8th AF service.

& in the USN - the "Ensign Eliminator" nick-name was applied to the F4U, due to its rep
for being a bit of an unforgiving beast for inexperienced pilots to operate.

[Saxman]

"Meaningless & Useless"?

Not at all,
since Clostermann rightly made his point from an insiders [experienced pilot] perspective.

However, the USAAF ( Colonel Rau) wrote an official report on the P-38 being a handful for
inexperienced fliers, & cited this as a contributing reason for preferring the Mustang in 8th AF service.

& in the USN - the "Ensign Eliminator" nick-name was applied to the F4U, due to its rep
for being a bit of an unforgiving beast for inexperienced pilots to operate.

The P-51 you've been humping this whole thread was a tricky machine to fly, too. Especially when the fuselage tank was full.

Going back further, the Sopwith Camel is probably the DEFINITION of the unforgiving fighter, but was also the single top-scoring Entente fighter of WWI.

So what's the point you're trying to make?

[J.A.W.]

The point the 8th AF made..
 
..the P-51 was their pick - over the P-38 (or P-47D) & the ability to be combat
effective even when flown by fairly new-fledged pilots..

& With the P-51 full fuel instability issue not really being a combat problem, since it was ( by mission profile) used & gone by the time combat was likely..

Unlike the Camel, the P-38 was never the top gun ETO [or even US] - fighter, so
the decision not to keep it in the 8th AF wasn't  solely due to a cost/complexity problem.



& was the Camel really any as better as a fighter - than the SE 5A?

The Snipe replaced the Camel, but the SE 5A was kept in service..

Got any comparative data, including non-combat crash rates?

( & Red Baron von Richthofen included 8 Camels & 5 SE 5A's in his total of 80 victories)

Certainly - the Camel was not forgiving of tentative newbies..

[J.A.W.]

& Sm, as far as P-51 'humping' goes, hey - how's this,

..from Bob Spurdle's memoir 'The Blue Arena' P.201,

"On Sortie No 551 some USAAF Mustangs jumped us.

 Enraged, I turned on my particular tormenter & scared him fartless by firing bursts first on one side, then the other - while he twisted & turned helpless against the far superior Tempest.

 Formating alongside, I shook my fist at the stupid jerk & then zoomed away.

We should have hacked a few down to teach them aircraft recognition.

We were sick of their trigger-happy stupidities."

[Brooke]

against the far superior Tempest.

Except above about 22k.

[Karnak]

The P-51 was cheaper than the P-38 or P-47 while still being a good fighter.

It'd be neat to know what the long range Spitfire experiments done by both the RAF and USAAF would have resulted in had the Merlin P-51 not happened.  Spitfires over Berlin flown by American pilots might have happened.