Best Heavy Fighter

[J.A.W.]

Credit when due, the P-51 provided an excellent blend of airframe/engine
efficiency at the right price, & right from the beginning of 8th AF Ops
showed itself superior performance-wise to the `38 & `47..

A check of 'Big Week' operations claim/loss ratios clearly demonstrate this, & with the new commanders pushing for optimum efficacy the 56th was kept
on `47s - largely as a political measure - & to run new T-bolts such as the M
in combat [ M was ostensibly built to catch V1 cruise missiles, but was too
late & too slow down low].

Heavy fighters [ & no competitive US built fighters were Yak 3 light] can carry heavy armament & or external ordnance/tankage, whereas light fighters can't..

[Karnak]

Opportunity is what it is all about.  The highest scoring Canadian squadron was 418 which flew Boston Mk IIIs and then Mosquito Mk VIs.  I don't think anybody is going to claim the Mosquito is better than the Spitfire for air-to-air combat, but due to its greater range it put its pilots where they could actually encounter the Luftwaffe.

[J.A.W.]

True, look at Canadian Spitfire ace-in-a-day Dick Audet for example..

[J.A.W.]

& as for the proud claim of the well run & aggressively boosted 56th to be
the hottest fighter unit in the 8th AF, isn't it true that the top scoring USAAF
fighter group in the ETO was actually - a 9th AF Mustang unit?

[Ack-Ack]

Here's some history then, as cited in 'Tank Buster Vs Combat Vehicle' P.68..

Tactical losses for `47s from invasion to VE day = 1,374 aircraft..

150 of those being lost in Feb alone..

& the USAF chose the P-51D for the GA role in Korea, not the P-47..

The only reason why the P-51D was selected over the P-47 to serve in Korea was the simple fact the US had more P-51D in USAAF and ANG inventory than the P-47.  The P-47, due to being more rugged and a more stable attack platform would have probably done a better job in the ground attack role than the Mustang did.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

The PTO was largely a technical back-water, after all which heavy fighter
was the mount of the US's highest scoring aces?

It wasn't the F6F, & yet it turned out to be a dud in the ETO..

The P-38 wasn't a dude in the ETO, it didn't have a good service history with the 8th AF, largely due to internal USAAF politics within the 8th AF.  The P-38 served quite well with squadrons in the 9th and 15th AF in both the ETO and MTO.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

People think of the start of the WWII air war as the Battle of Britain and Pearl Harbor. Most do not consider that these two battles are years apart, yet the aircraft that fought in the BoB compare favorably to those that fought over Pearl Harbor.

You forget that those RAF planes that fought in the BoB had their arses handed to them when they ran into the Zero and Ki-43 over Rangoon and Australia when the RAF/Commonwealth pilots thought their Spitfires and Hurricanes were more than a match for the Zero and Ki-43.  Just like the early USAAF/USN pilots, the RAF pilots learned the hard way not to turn with the Japanese.

People also tend to to forget that at the beginning of the war, the Japanese were amongst the best trained and on average already had more combat experience than both the RAF and Luftwaffe (due to the 2nd Sino-Japanese War).  For example, only a very small handful had combat experience with the Luftwaffe at the start of the BoB, while the majority of the pilots that took part in the Pearl Harbor raid, Philippines and the attacks on RAF/Dutch/French colonies already had combat experience.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Lets see now..
 P-38 was best performing at high altitude due to its turbo mills,
but due to lame Vne, couldn't cut it against the LW or P-51 up there..

So, like its fellow failed expensive high alt' turbo stable-mate P-47,
 it was then relegated to the tactical strike role..

But, due to being a big flak target & fragile, losses got so bad that it was
again relegated - to the medium bombing role..

& it wasn't too good at that either..

To sum up, in the ETO, the P-38 couldn't hack the pace.. a dud..

The P-38 wasn't fragile, it was a rather robust aircraft known to be able to take damage.  If was for more rugged than the P-51, that's for sure.  It was also successful as a ground attack, due to being able to carry a nice payload and accurate/stable gun and attack platform.  It was never 'relegated' to the medium bombing role nor does the occasional mission level bombing mission make it so.  Mustangs and Thunderbolts also flew level bombing missions, does that mean they too were relegated to the medium bomber role?  Of course not, just means the mission of the day called for them to level bomb their targets.

As I mentioned, the P-38 had a good service record with the 9th and 15th AF in the ETO and MTO.

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

A.A. you've got some of your history wrong, since - stupidly - no Spitfires were sent overseas to fight 'til  later in`42, &  the whole far eastern allied air effort `41-42 was well summed up by the book  - 'A  Bloody Shambles'..

As I posted earlier, if they'd had Keith Park running the show as well he had the BoB & Malta, things would not have been so dire..

P-38s were in fact less robust than P-51s, this was commented on in official USAAF technical documents, & loss reports - which admitted they were basically past their best-by-date for use in the ETO..

If the P-38 had been up to it, the 8th AF would have kept them, or at least one unit, for development purposes, like the 56th with its `47Ms..

But the results gained vs losses stats - clearly showed they weren't up to the hot pace of the ETO..

& do please cite an example of the single engined fighters being relegated to the medium bomber/level bombing routine.
AFAIK neither the `47 or `51 were modified to carry a dedicated bombardier
like the `38..

& the 8th AF even preferred using lend-lease British Spitfires & Mosquitos for their PRU units - over the Lightning recon variants..

As for P-47/38 vs P-51s the USAAF stats show that the Mustang was overall the superior fighter, in both A2A & GA, as well as being ~1/2 the price to buy & operate compared to them..

[J.A.W.]

Not that the Mustang was the 'be all & end all'
of air-superiority fighters in the ETO.

The RAF chose to replace its Mustangs [used in 122 Wing 2nd TAF for the tactical air-superiority role - with Tempests], for the push to the Reich - once
the mass V1 cruise missile assault on Britain had been dealt with..

Like-wise the RAF felt that their Spitfire XIV had certain A2A advantages
over the Mustang for high alt' combat roles.

[J.A.W.]

You forget that those RAF planes that fought in the BoB had their arses handed to them when they ran into the Zero and Ki-43 over Rangoon and Australia when the RAF/Commonwealth pilots thought their Spitfires and Hurricanes were more than a match for the Zero and Ki-43.  Just like the early USAAF/USN pilots, the RAF pilots learned the hard way not to turn with the Japanese.

People also tend to to forget that at the beginning of the war, the Japanese were amongst the best trained and on average already had more combat experience than both the RAF and Luftwaffe (due to the 2nd Sino-Japanese War).  For example, only a very small handful had combat experience with the Luftwaffe at the start of the BoB, while the majority of the pilots that took part in the Pearl Harbor raid, Philippines and the attacks on RAF/Dutch/French colonies already had combat experience.

ack-ack

A.A., by `43 the Spitfire VIII was available for A2A combat in Burma[& Australia],
- by using LW-style B & Z tactics  - they soon got the measure of the Nippon fighters.

From 'Aircraft vs Aircraft' P. 143, experienced Kiwi pilot Alan Peart wrote:

"They were not heavily armoured & our .303s could put a lot of destructive metal into them. The cannons caused obvious & serious damage.
This was not the case with Me 109s where I have hit one with machine guns from behind only to see the bullets ricocheting off."

"Our tactics were to position ourselves above the Oscars, attack at speed using the sun, surprise if possible & power to climb away out of range.
Thus we could mount continuous attacks with relative impunity".

"The Japanese defence was to fly in circles, each fighter covering the one in front & taking snap shots at the Spitfires as they passed."

"I never did see a Japanese pilot bail out"..

"The Mk VIII had a considerable advantage over the Oscars & Zekes,
being armoured, more highly powered, faster & better armed.
The Japanese on the other hand were extremely manoeuvrable, had great endurance in the air & generally outnumbered the intercepting Spitfires."

"...the Japanese suffered severe fighter losses & lost a lot of their aggressiveness. Until then they'd appeared to roam at will over Allied territory."

So, a repeat effect really - of the impact of the high powered Merlin engine fighter's belated appearance in the MTO & over Germany too [in the 8th AF Mustangs].. 

[Saxman]

So, a repeat effect really - of the impact of the high powered Merlin engine fighter's belated appearance in the MTO & over Germany too [in the 8th AF Mustangs].. 

This didn't have a thing to do with the Merlin engine. The same thing was being done with the Allison-powered P-40s and P-38s, and the R-2800-equipped F4U and F6F.

[J.A.W.]

`Cept them gas-hog R-2800 or Allison powered planes couldn't do it escorting B-17 & B-24 formations over Berlin, nor B-29s over Tokyo, could they..

Hi-po Merlin Mustangs could & did..

Nor did those P-40/38s do so in Africa against the 190A/109Gs..

Hi-po Merlin Spitfires could & did..

[Ack-Ack]

`Cept them gas-hog R-2800 or Allison powered planes couldn't do it escorting B-17 & B-24 formations over Berlin, nor B-29s over Tokyo, could they..

The first US fighter over Berlin was the P-38, when the 55th FG was tasked with escorting bombers to Berlin.

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

Ok, & PRU Spitfires regularly did trips to the 'Big City' too..
Question is, what damage did they do to the LW there?

Frighten a little mouse under a chair at the Air Ministry, perhaps?

Actually, what was it Goering said about - when he knew the war was lost?
When he saw Lightnings over Berlin? No.. it was Mustangs, wasn't it..