Best Heavy Fighter

[Ack-Ack]

Has anyone got a copy of the `44 USN 'fighter conference'?

Where they tested the USAAF birds against the Navy types?

From memory, there was a poll taken, with the pilots voting on attributes..

The `47 beat out the Navy R-2800 types for best hi-alt' performer,
& the `51 was  best <25kft & O/A best..[P-38 didn't rate].

The USN knew they'd had it pretty easy air-wise in the PTO,[compared to combat against the LW] & they even went to the trouble of checking out the `51 on a CV..

A.A., please find the G/A claim/loss stats to back up your P-38 belief..

AFAIR, the size, fragility & instant ID factors all contributed to the `38
being flak bait in the GA role, which why it was relegated to the
medium bomber/level bombing routine.

Navy planes in the PTO, [esp' Zero] could eke out long ranges by flying real low & slow over open ocean, that would get you dead quick smart over CAP/flak happy Europe , or a fleet at sea..

& G.S., so true - your `47 egg pic is a great yolk..  

Where do you get the incorrect idea that the P-38 was relegated to the medium bombing role? 

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

'Droop Snoot', where the effort to make a Mosquito-type bomber out of the P-38 - complete with Norden bomb-aimer in the nose - was expended..

Of course this was in the ETO, where the P-38 was out of its depth
as a primary A2A fighter/bomber, it was still up to that role in the PTO..

[Ack-Ack]

'Droop Snoot', where the effort to make a Mosquito-type bomber out of the P-38 - complete with Norden bomb-aimer in the nose - was expended..

Some P-38s were converted to Droop Snoops to act as pathfinders, doesn't mean the P-38 was relegated to the medium bombing role.

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

Well, that D.S. sure looks like a lot of trouble to go to,

The other top-line ETO fighter-bombers didn't need it..

Why did the `38? - if not because of the loss rate in G/A?

The D.S. mission profile was clearly a medium/level bomber role,
but the `38 didn't have a bomb bay like a purpose-built bomber.

It was really a 1/2 arsed kind of thing to give the
 `38 units some employment without murderous loss rates..

[Tank-Ace]

Well, that D.S. sure looks like a lot of trouble to go to,

The other top-line ETO fighter-bombers didn't need it..

Why did the `38? - if not because of the loss rate in G/A?

The D.S. mission profile was clearly a medium/level bomber role,
but the `38 didn't have a bomb bay like a purpose-built bomber.

It was really a 1/2 arsed kind of thing to give the
 `38 units some employment without murderous loss rates..

What the hell are you drinking? Whatever it is, give me some, cause I want to get goofy too.

[J.A.W.]

And P-47Ns were doing the VLR escort thing in the PTO (range of over 2000 miles) well before the Mustang (surprise, range of ~1650 miles) got there.

Frankly, JAW, you're accusing me of bias just by saying the Corsairs were competitive with fighter designs in the ETO (and that's ALL I said. So what if one aircraft might have an advantage in certain areas? P-51 a better high-alt, long range escort? Without question. But the Corsair was certainly the better all-around dogfighter below 20,000ft, and by FAR superior as a ground-attack aircraft. And calling the F4U-4 the best all-around fighter of WWII comes from a lot of people who research this stuff for a living) but I'm seeing a LOT of bias out of you.

Sm, 'Just the facts ma'am' as Sgt Friday would say.. No 'bias', no B.S...

The F4U-4 entered  [combat] service post VE day, so was really a contemporary of the P-51H, & in reality, based on the service acceptance testing performance envelopes, the Army boys would have no problems establishing A2A dominance in a khaki-on-blue show-down between the 2..  

[J.A.W.]

What the hell are you drinking? Whatever it is, give me some, cause I want to get goofy too.

Huh? You can read, right?

So, what is your explanation for all that D.S. add-on crap..

[Tank-Ace]

Huh? You can read, right?

So, what is your explanation for all that D.S. add-on crap..

You know your argument isn't valid, correct? Use in a secondary role does not necessarily imply ineffectivness in the primary role. Look at all the nightfighter versions of bombers like the Ju-88, Do-217, Ju-188, etc. That doesn't mean they weren't some of Germany's best bombers.

[Rino]

`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..

     Hmmm....


     I guess those guys in the P-47Ns were just lost?

[Ack-Ack]

Well, that D.S. sure looks like a lot of trouble to go to,

The other top-line ETO fighter-bombers didn't need it..

Why did the `38? - if not because of the loss rate in G/A?

The D.S. mission profile was clearly a medium/level bomber role,
but the `38 didn't have a bomb bay like a purpose-built bomber.

It was really a 1/2 arsed kind of thing to give the
 `38 units some employment without murderous loss rates..

I hate to burst your bubble but P-47s and P-51s (like the standard P-38) also did the occasional level bombing mission with a pathfinder leading the flight to act as the lead bomber.  In most cases, when the standard fighters dropped their payload on command of the pathfinder/lead, the fighters would then dive to the deck and strafe targets of opportunity.

The number of P-38s that were converted to Droop Snoots numbers no more than 123 converted.  The exact number isn't known but 23 were converted at the Langford Lodge factory and an additional 100 kits were produced for P-38s in all theaters.  So out of the 10,000+ P-38s produced during the war, 123 or less were Droop Snoots.

Why was this done for the P-38 and not the P-47 or the P-51?  Because neither of those planes could be modified like the P-38 was able to be in terms of adding a glass nose, bomb sight and an additional crewman.  The only reason why it was even thought up, is that two officers in the 8th AF were looking at ways to make the P-38 more accurate when bombing with a full payload since they couldn't dive bomb when carrying 4,000 pounds of bombs (usually 2x 2,000 pounders).  Colonels Cass Hough and Don Ostrander came up with the idea of modifying a P-38 and Lockheed conducted the tests using a P-38H.

ack-ack

[J.A.W.]

Hey Rino,
Thanks, thats some cool box-top art, now how 'bout some facts on actual
 B-29 escort ops, got any to post?

& T-A/A.A, what do you reckon  the modification to the P-38 D.S. cost?

To get approval for a program like that, there had to be a pretty major
motivating factor..

Esp' since the job it did do was no better than the B-25/26..

Check the`38 G/A loss rates, if you doubt it..

[J.A.W.]

Once converted to a D.S., the `38 is no longer a fighter, & with the extra load, it wasn't even a bomber, either..

[SirNuke]

Once converted to a D.S., the `38 is no longer a fighter, & with the extra load, it wasn't even a bomber, either..

4000lb of ord qualifies as bomber in my book. The B5N is a bomber..so is the TBM.

[J.A.W.]

4000lb of ord qualifies as bomber in my book. The B5N is a bomber..so is the TBM.

Ah, sorry S.N., but actually the D.S. couldn't/didn't tote 4,000lbs of ord'..

[Ack-Ack]

Once converted to a D.S., the `38 is no longer a fighter, & with the extra load, it wasn't even a bomber, either..

No kidding the Droop Snoot wasn't used as a fighter, no one said it was.  Just because less than a 123 P-38s were converted to Droop Snoots, doesn't mean the standard P-38 was then relegated to the bomber role.  It's operational history doesn't back up your claims as it was used in both the fighter and ground support role up until the end of the war in the PTO, CBI, ETO and MTO.  The 474th continued to fly P-38s in the long penetration fighter role up until VE-Day, in addition to ground support duties.

ack-ack