P47, P51, P38...the German view......

[GRUNHERZ]

So how does presenting actual wartime FW test data charts and graphs showing that the FW190A5 was some 20mph faster on the deck than in AH, then HTC not even thanking or even acknowledging this contribution for months on end fit into your
little story Oedipus? To the best of my info Pyro hasnt even to this day said anything about that data.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by worr


In Ossie's defense he never said it was flaps. What he was probably referencing is the almost universal acceptance that McGuire is responsible for his own death...aka pride goes before the fall...because he ordered drop tanks left on in the fight.

There have been those historians who have tried to redeem this scenario, but I find it difficult to do even if his memory does not deserve such a tarnishment.

As for the yoke...I'm sure you've read and the pilot's you've talked to have all said it was pointless. They would have prefered a stick. The engineers put the yoke in there to over come the poor roll performance. And most of the time a pilot does not use two hands to fly in real life.

The Report of Joint Fighter Conference confirmed what pilots were saying about the 38 all over...that it was a busy cockpit...and you were switching hands all the time. I dare you to read what is writtin in that report. I'll quote one comment, however, "The yoke hides the instruments! Too complicated....Crowded....thr ottles too long and far apart for good directional control."

Worr, out

I've read parts of that report. I've also talked to a lot of P-38 pilots who liked the yoke. While you don't always fly with both hands on the yoke, it allows you the advantage of using both hands if you need to. It also makes it easier to manipulate controls on both sides of the cockpit. If you start with both hands on the yoke, you can maintain a firm and steady grip with the right hand while operating controls on the left side of the cockpit with your left hand, and the same goes for the other side. Not everything you read in that report is the truth, and it didn't necessarily include all or even a great number of the top notch pilots. I've even heard a lot of the top pilots say the whole thing was a joke.

Of course the P-38 cockpit was busy, it had switches, controls, and instruments for TWO engines! The cockpit was not small, but it was not as large as the P-47 or P-51 cockpits, so it would by necessity be crowded and busy.

I sat in a P-38, I can put one hand on both throttles, or both prop controls, or both mixture controls. Longer levers provide easier and smoother input, with finer control. Of course you had to swap hands at times, there were controls and switches on both sides of the cockpit.

As far as Ossie goes, the way he wrote it made it sound as if he meant that flaps were the whole issue regarding the P-38, and they couldn't be operated in real life the way they can in AH. And he mentioned McGuire basically in the same sentence. Yes, McGuire made the call to hold tanks, and it wasn't necessarily the right call. There is no doubt that McGuire's aggressive style put him in that position, he would toss a P-38 around so hard that he bent a bunch of them.

McGuire's death does not tarnish his image or memory at all, he died trying to get a shot on an enemy plane attacking a member of his flight, there's nothing there to tarnish his image.

However, after talking to several P-38 pilots, including  Capt. Art Heiden and Capt. Stan Richardson Jr. (an advanced P-38 instructor with over 3000 hours, and at least 500 hours with one engine shut down intentionally), and reading what both Weaver and Thropp wrote, along with reports on McGuire's flying style, I've reached the conclusion that it was the failure of an engine to respond to throttle input that caused the crash. Too many good pilots have told me that the ONLY way they could EVER get a P-38 to snap roll in a stall was to turn too hard into a dead or slowed engine. In otherwords, a P-38 won't flip without assymetric power, but it will almost always flip with assymetric power in a turn. It is this very phenomenon that caused so many P-38s to crash on take off when losing an engine. It was Stan's job to teach pilots how to fly the P-38 on one engine, and he said that was the only way to get a P-38 to turn turtle.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by hazed-



its what we read vs what we see in AH.

'The P-38 was actually quite durable, the wing spar was stainless steel.(quick point here so was the 190's) There are reports of P-38s colliding with telephone poles and other planes, with the other planes and the telephone poles coming out on the losing end. Jack Ilfrey collided with a 109, and lost about six feet of wing, while the 109 spun in out of control, due to the loss of an entire wing, Ilfrey returned to base, and landed safely. A P-38 from the same group hit a telephone pole on a strafing run, cutting the pole in half, while the P-38 lost a prop and suffered engine damage, the pilot returned to base and landed safely. While the P-38 was not without its faults, being fragile was not one of them. It was common to have P-38s land even when they were so badly bent from overstress in dives or turns that the controls were nearly jammed, and the planes had to be scrapped. Many P-38s landed with holes in their wings you could stand in, missing wing sections, holes all the way through engines you could stick your arm through, and even a couple with one tail boom shot away.'

this sort of thing i find intersting and I would like to see where this all comes from.Maybe if i read these in a book id change my mind about them.However i certainly havent seen anything like it myself.Perhaps you can give us more info than a second hand recalling of this? for all we know it could be made up or like chinese whispers all complete nonsense.
p38 cutting down telephone poles? that is something id like to see in print before i believe

having said that, if i did see it Id immediately stop questioning what i often see in AH.Or at least it would cross off the p38.

Here you go Hazed:

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/6940/collision.html

http://www.dweebsofdeath.com/propaganda/hammel.html


Now, mind you, this isn't all of it, just a couple incidents. with a couple pictures, one of Ilfrey's plane with part of the wing missing, and one of it having returned with near 300 holes in it and an engine shot out.

[Wotan]

the p38 is pos.

caldwel estimated that the on the west front the lw averaged  operational strength averaged 1364 of day fighters.

From mid-1941 to mid-1944, JG 26 and JG 2 were the only Luftwaffe day fighter units defending German-occupied France. For the first two of those years, JG 1 was the only day fighter unit defending the Reich.

Pilot stories while entertaining are just that, stories. Most of them when matched with real facts prove to have been "embelished".

The airwar in the west broke the lw with overwhelming numbers. It was a large "gangbang".

February 1943 was a time of great success for the Experten of II./JG 2. By this time they had adapted to the conditions of desert air combat, and there were plentiful targets as the Allies built up their air power in North Africa. The second day of the month gave a taste of what was to come. While attacking P-40Fs of the 60th FS/33rd FG and P-39s of the 154th Observation Squadron, Oblt Bühligen downed two P-40s and a P-39. The next day saw II./JG 2 achieve its second best victory tally of 12 in a day. Again Bühligen was heavily involved, he claimed two P-39s of the 81st FG and two P-40Fs of the 33rd FG, who were strafing German troops. He also shot down a Spitfire of 243 Sqdn over his Gruppe’s base, Kairouan, giving him five for the day. Other successful pilots were: Ofw Kurt Goltzsch (3), Lt Lothar Werner (1), Uffz Erich Engelbrecht (1), Eichler (1) and Uffz Heinz Schulze (1). III./SKG 10 added to the FW 190 victories on the 3rd by destroying a P-40F of the 33rd FG on the ground at Thelepte airfield during an early afternoon raid.

The Gruppe’s run of success continued the next day as Gruppenkommandeur Rudorffer downed two Spitfire Vs of the 52nd FG in the Sbeitla-Fondouk area, and Bühligen downed another in the same combat. At 1500 Oblt Bühligen claimed two more victories, this time P-38s of the 82nd FG near Matmata. The next few days saw little action, although III./SKG 10 continued to carry out raids on Allied airfields, attacking Souk el Khemis on the 8th.

On 9 February 1943, II./JG 2 achieved its highest tally in the Tunisian campaign, when it downed some 16 aircraft, half of which went to the Gruppenkommandeur himself. In fact, Rudorffer claimed all his eight victories in the space of half an hour during one early afternoon sortie. Just after noon on the 9th, bombers (B-17s of the 301st BG) and fighters (18 P-38s of the 94th FS) were reported approaching II./JG 2’s base, Kairouan, and immediately the unit’s readiness Staffel took off to engage them. Rudorffer was last to take off, and after sighting the enemy formation at 21500 feet, attacked the fighters. He attacked P-40s which were flying in a defensive circle, and by slipping in and out he managed to down six of them. He then sighted P-38s below strafing German ground targets. He shot down two of these south of Maktar at 1521 and 1522 in two passes, giving him a total of eight. The following is Rudorffer's own account of the action:

it was south of Tunis, about 180 kilometres. We got word - we were based at Kairouan - that bombers and fighters were on the way (B-17s of the 301st BG and P-38s of the 1st FG). One Staffel was already sitting in their aircraft and I ordered them off. I was always last to take off and waited to get the latest information on the enemy's course and speed. Then I took off with my Schwarm of four and we assembled with the others in the air and headed for the "dicke Autos und Indianer". They were coming from the west, about 24 B-17s, 18 P-40s, 20 P-38s and a similar number of Spitfires - some of them may have been Hurricanes because when the dogfight began I thought I saw some Hurricanes also. We were at about 7000 metres and the bombers were below us, the P-40s above.
When we started for the bombers the Curtiss fighters came down on us and that's when the dogfight began. After a time the P-40s, which were not as fast as us, went into a 'Luftbery' circle and I began to slip in from low and high and shoot them donw. I managed to shoot down six in about seven minutes. As I recall the combat report, I got one at 1359 and the last at 1406. By that time the fight had broken up and everyone had scattered. Then I saw some  P-38s strafing below us, and though I had only about four FW 190s with me at this time, I went down at them and surprised them. I got one coming from above and then went up again and came down on another and shot him down. That gave me eight for the day - I remember it because it was one of the best days I ever had."

[/b]

The Gruppe achieved more success on this day, with 11 claims being made. The Gruppenkommandeur Lt Rudorffer shot down seven Allied aircraft on a late afternoon sortie, including four P-38s north-west of Pichon and three Spitfires north of El Abeid. Oblt Bühligen also experienced some success, claiming three victories, including one B-25. Fw Goltzsch was the other claimant of the unit.

Köhler’s words, "an astonishing performance”, can also be used to sum up the performance of the Focke-Wulf FW 190 in North Africa. Against enemy air superiority the FW 190s of II./JG 2, III./SKG 10 and Sch.G. 2 achieved great success against both enemy aircraft and ground targets, and at times, the Würger seemed to dominate the African skies.

[Wotan]

Virgil you cant make any claim as to how "tough" a plane is based only on rare examples of a few who made it back heavily damaged.

You have to research the ones that didnt make it back as well. Some of them may have been killed with just 1 7mm.

Wirthout taking account of the losses and how they were lost all you offer is anecdotal evidence that shpws no insight to how "tough" the p38 was.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Hazed, take a look at Bodie's book on the P-38, there are several pictures in it. I don't have a scanner, maybe someone else does. There is a picture of a P-38 that hit a telephone pole with the outer wing, and a picture of one that collided with a Lancaster.

The P-38 did have a couple of weak areas, the cooling system was very spread out and complex, with long plumbing, and relatively exposed radiators (the two pods on the sides of the fuselage booms), and the turbochargers were exposed, making them vulnerable. A shot up turbocharger could shut down an engine by sending turbo pieces down the intake, or by leaking oil out under pressure.

As far as the toughness of the P-47 goes, I'd say the story and pictures of Robet S. Johnson's plane should tell the tale.

And I agree, the P-51 was tin foil compared to the other two. I think several pilots who preferred the P-38 or P-47 called the P-51 the "spam can". Even the USAAF didn't like the hot rod lightweight P-51H.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Wotan
Virgil you cant make any claim as to how "tough" a plane is based only on rare examples of a few who made it back heavily damaged.

You have to research the ones that didnt make it back as well. Some of them may have been killed with just 1 7mm.

Wirthout taking account of the losses and how they were lost all you offer is anecdotal evidence that shpws no insight to how "tough" the p38 was.

So, Wotan, show me a massive number that were shot down with a few hits.


Oh, and by the way, if I can't prove the P-38 was tough with a few examples, then you can't prove the Luftwaffe was superior, and that the P-38 was inferior to the Luftwaffe planes, with a few examples of their success.

Further, if the Luftwaffe and its planes were so great, and in your words "the P-38 was a pos" then why did the P-38D through P-38H have an air to air kill to loss ratio of 4:1 against the "vaunted Luftwaffe" and their "completely superior aircraft and pilots"? Or how about the P-38L and its 6:1 kill to loss ratio in air to air combat against that same Luftwaffe?

Want examples of P-38 pilots like the Luftwaffe pilots you posted above? Capt. Larry Blumer, 5 FW 190s in 15 minutes, likely including Luftwaffe ace Rudy Dassow. Robin Olds, 2 Fw 190s while alone in enemy territory (gun camera film confirms two destroyed). Ervin Ethel, 4 Me 109s and a 5th probable, while facing a flight of around 20, with no other Allied pilots close enough to help, and with no damage to his plane. The list goes on.

News flash, the Luftwaffe lost Wotan, blown out of the sky. Not always by superior numbers, and not always by pilots and planes with an advantage at the engagement either.

It's funny how a bunch of Luftwaffe fans get together and claim that everything the Allied side (that's the side that won, by the way) claims is exagerrated, and Allied pilots are liars and murderers, but they claim the Germans (the agressors, and the losers, by the way) never lied, never exagerrated, and never committed atrocities. When you win, you really don't have to make ridiculous claims, but when you lose I guess you need some real good excuses, and you need to show that you were at least in the game at some point.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by Oedipus
Hazed it's not the questions. It's the presentation.  To try and correct percieved errors or deficiencies in some aircraft (109's and 190's predominately) some players repeatedly use irrelevant examples of other AH aircraft they believe to be over modelled. Mostly to show some imagined "bias." Or real life comparisons are  dragged in to support ones case on how "flying" some airplane in an online arena doesn't compare to the REAL life anecdotes they read about in books.  And that's bull.

That's my only point.

oedipus i can appreciate what you are saying and yes i too notice the over zealous LW lovers who border on the fanatical, and i have to say almost idolise them.But I can tell you right now i neither idolise nor appreciate any of the nazi doctrine.

I lost family in WW2 and i have been brought up with stories of just what they were capable of and ive read untold books on the subject.Including Martin gilberts 'second world war' some 700 pages long describing in clinical detail the attrocities commited.(BY ALL SIDES I MIGHT ADD)

What i dont appreciate is people claiming i have some alterior motives for my questioning of this game.

I am simply a player in a GAME.this game has NO POLITICAL standpoint and neither do I.I am looking at AH as literally a chess type game with peices being the aircraft and i honestly think i have an objective view.I 'play' with each peice and i make my mind up about them

My personal opinion is the p38 and p51 and la7 are or seem to be FAR more durable than other aircraft of similar design.

take the p51 for example, I think everyone MUST agree it was well known that the radiator was extremely badly positioned for a wartime fighter and it suffered because of it.It was constructed in a similar fashion to other aircraft of the time apart from (i think im right) a stressed skin construction and a laminar flow wing.This didnt make it any tougher than say a typhoon or a 190.

In AH it is no more vulnerable than some of the toughest planes of WW2. These i would include P47,F4u,190F,Il2,B17,Hurricane(to some extent),F4F among others.So why is it in this game i notice time and time again behaviour that just doesnt fit with the recorded stories by some of the best pilots of all time?.

Im fully aware that they often tell their stories with a little added or forgoten but GENERALLy you get a picture of the aircraft they flew.

for instance the amount of pilots that described the spitfire as a plane you strap on rather than get in, the B17 crews that say how much their aircraft took before they went down, the stories of P47s struggling home with no oil,wings holed etc even from LW pilots describing them?

why would a pilot from the LW praise the durability of a P47 then , for some unknown reason lie about how durable a p38 was? his motive is to piss off the company that makes the plane?? the pilots that flew them?? what a load of crock!!

If you read the book i named in the first post you would understand why i think it is a good insight into the planes and men who flew them.It is highly self critical of the LW aircraft and command structure.Galland totally dismisses the He162 for example as a complete waste of resources, he gives an open account. why? because he was being interogated NOT interveiwed.This was information for use by the United states armed forces, not info for a novel.

anyway i digress. I have to go back to the point im trying to make which is in this GAME there is certain flaws imo.One of them is durability when you compare some fighters which are really not constructed much differently in real life but behave totally differently in our game.I say its roadkill.

you call me whatever you want, you can claim im some dweeb out for a bigger score or easier time in his LW plane if you like.I know that i have an interest in ALL WW2 aircraft and i dont need some added bonus to make my chosen ride easier to win in a game with.To be honest if i was a pony pilot most of the time id want my model to be EXACTLY like it was,flaws and all.If it wasnt a suitable ground pounder then id damn well want that to pan out in the game.Why?? because then , when i flew the mighty p47 Id see all too clearly why it was so good for that job.

who knows we may get just a brief taste of why they , the pilots of WW2, loved their rides so much?
we'd fly the historically tough planes for jabo and the weaker ones for fighting air to air instead of the present system where the p51 and p38 and others can do just about anything asked of them.We have lost all sense of the character of the aircraft if you ask me.

im giving up yet again on this roadkill BB.

[hazed-]

and to answer some of the other points in this post like trying to work out which plane was the toughest by how many kills it had vs losses is totally dumb.

The factors that cause these numbers are inumerable!

green pilots, flying orders, targets attacked and attackers ignored in favour of finishing missions, mechanical failure,weather, training, sizes of the forces involved etc etc etc . theres thousands of influencing factors to consider.

kill ratios in an airbattle where one side is attacking bombers predominantly whilst the other is trying to stop them mainly tell you how well they did as PILOTS not as a comparison of aircraft.
These factors, however, have little to do with the game we play as for one thing we dont have fear,mechanical trouble,a TRUELLY accurate model of the air, real planes or anything else apart from a computer model which attampts to recreate a FEEL.
claim whatever you like but it still boils down to the fact that this GAME is not 100% correct and is just code in a computer.

everyone dismisses what we 'feel' whilst playing it but for me that is actually the best representation we have.If it doesnt 'feel' right to a 'majority' of those that fly the model, I think it should be looked into.Of course not every complaint can be addressed but when dozens of players complain about the overly common oil damage on the 190s for example and HTC corrects it, AND then they stop complaining (so much ) SURELY something has been done right.

I agreed the p38 had a far too weak tail in the early days but after the adjustment I began to notice it was incredibly strong.Just put it back down a touch and i think id find it acceptable.I dont want the glass tail back but i do want to see it being damaged just as easily as other planes of similar construction.Thats what i dont see at the moment.thats the point of the post.

hehe rather a large p.s. wasnt it

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Wotan
The airwar in the west broke the lw with overwhelming numbers. It was a large "gangbang".

I....uh, I mean, respectfully, you know, Wotan, because you're my friend and all....say that this is baloney.

The Luftwaffe had the ability to concentrate its planes in any given area at any given time.  They had plenty of warning for each raid, because it took so long for the 8th AF to form up over England.  Because of range considerations, the US had to split its fighter groups up in a zone relay system, so that in any given area there was only one group of escorts.  The accounts cited by others here, e.g. the 61st Fighter Squadron meeting 60 Nazi planes, is understandable because of this.

Moreover, the critical period of the airwar, when the Luftwaffe lost its best and brightest, was generally from October, 1943 through the Berlin raids in March, 1944.  After the close of the Berlin raids, bomber missions were rarely opposed by a significant fighter force.  The Luftwaffe was not greatly outnumbered by Allied fighter groups during this period.  By the late spring and early summer of 1944, of course, that had changed, and from there on out it was an aluminum overcast of Allied planes.  But the Luftwaffe was broken before that, by even numbers in circumstances that the Luftwaffe ought to have been able to win.  This is one of the reasons I've never been a big Galland fan.  He was at the helm in this period, and he never did get their organization to the point at which he could respond to a raid with an organized, concentrated defense.

- oldman

[worr]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I've read parts of that report....Not everything you read in that report is the truth,

[snip]

Of course the P-38 cockpit was busy, it had switches, controls, and instruments for TWO engines!

I sat in a P-38, I can put one hand on both throttles, or both prop controls, or both mixture controls. Longer levers provide easier and smoother input, with finer control. Of course you had to swap hands at times, there were controls and switches on both sides of the cockpit.

Yes, I have sat in one too. Once with Blummer, whom you mentioned above who shot down 5 FWs in a day. He was in my home town shortly before he passed away..for our airshow. What a hot shot!

I've flown twins myself. The 38's cockpit could have been arranged better. Did you notice where the fuel tanks are? That is flat out wrong...out of sight out of mind. (Jeff Ethel?) And the yoke does block the panel....even though I'm pretty tall.

As for the fighter report...yes its exceptionally biased and inconclusive. But the coffee was paid for by the US governement. If you want more of it...I have a copy here in my library. Its comments about the 38 in combat are harsh to extreme.

BTW...allow me to introduce myself to you. I'm the head trainer over at Warbirds. I've been flying there for seven years....and know most of the people who came over to AH in the beginning. I have a lot of friends over here! I've done some writing, even on the P-38, and teaching aviation.

Sounds like you like your FTD. Love to meet up with you some day. We have a great air museum here in Fargo, ND. No P-38, however.

Worr, out



Worr, out

[worr]

Originally posted by Wotan
the p38 is pos.

caldwel estimated that the on the west front the lw averaged  operational strength averaged 1364 of day fighters.

So what is your point?

How many fighters from that 1,364 does it take ot overwhelm a flight of 8 P-38s flying close escort?

Interesting that Caldwel puts this time period under the heading in his book called "Temporary Ascendancey."

Worr, out

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Hazed, take a look at Bodie's book on the P-38, there are several pictures in it. I don't have a scanner, maybe someone else does. There is a picture of a P-38 that hit a telephone pole with the outer wing, and a picture of one that collided with a Lancaster.

Actually, it was a Halifax, which apparently crashed (as a Halifax went down in that area at approximately that time). Embedded in the leading edge of the P-38's wing is an entire vertical stabilizer from the Halifax.

My regards,

Widewing

[worr]

Originally posted by Oldman731
The Luftwaffe had the ability to concentrate its planes in any given area at any given time.  

Exactly...and even into late 44 this still was the case any time the LW husbanded its resources. But in the end it was a battle of attrition. And no so much the tactics...particularily the sucess of Hub Zemke's strategies, as well as Doolittle's freedom for the fighters in 44...was the real death knell.

Worr, out

[worr]

Originally posted by hazed-
and to answer some of the other points in this post like trying to work out which plane was the toughest by how many kills it had vs losses is totally dumb.

You are combining two separate discussions that are going on at the same time here, hazed.

I don't fly AH, but the 38 was a tough machine...but not notoriously so, like the P-47. The FW was also a tough little bugger. The 38 did have, however, liquid cooled engines. That made it more vulnerable that an air cooled engine in itself.

Worr, out