Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MiloMorai on July 05, 2005, 04:13:19 PM
-
two post from another forum - part 1.
by DoubleT
An excerpt from "Top-Guns" By Joe Foss and Matthew Brennan... this account of mock-combat shared by Colonel John Lowell, highest scoring P-38 ace/European Theatre:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our Group recieved several P-38Ls just before the P-51s arrived. This latest "Lightning" had dive-flaps under the wings, improved power and a gun camera located away from the nose. On a day we were 'stood down" (no missions), General Eisenhower arranged for one of the top English aces, Wing Commander Donaldson, to come to Honington and show us slides of English Spitfires that had been equipped with external tanks like U.S. fighters. Those tanks allowed Spitfires to penetrate deep into Germany. Most of the U.S. pilots didn't know about the Spit's long-range, and some Spitfires had been fired upon before American pilots realized that their insignia was the Royal Air Force circle and not a German Swastika. ME-109s, P-51s and Spitfires were not easily distinguishable from one another until close enough to "make combat."
All 364th Fighter Group pilots attended Donaldson's slide picture presentation in our briefing room. When he had finished, he described the new Spitfire XV he had flown to our base. It had a five-bladed prop, a bigger engine, and improved firepower. Then he said, "If one of you bloody bastards has enough guts, I'll fly mock combat above your field and show you how easily this SpitXV can whip your best pilot's ass."
The entire group started clapping and hollared, "Big John! Big John!"
That was me, so I asked him, "what is your fuel load?"
He replied, "Half petrol."
"What is your ammo load?"
He said, "No ammo."
We agreed to cross over the field at 5,000 feet, then anything goes. I took-off in a new P-38L, after my crew chief had removed the ammo and put back the minimum counter-balance, dropped the external tanks, and sucked out half the internal fuel. I climbed very high, so that as I dived down to cross over the field at 5,000 feet I would be close to 600mph.
When Donaldson and I crossed, I zoomed straight-up while watching him try to get on my tail. When he did a wingover from loss of speed, I was several thousand feet above him, so I quickly got on his tail. Naturally, he turned into a full-power right Lufbery as I closed in. I frustrated that with my "Clover-Leaf", and if we'd had "hot guns", he would have been shot down. He came over the field with me on his tail and cut throttle, dropped flaps, and split S'ed from about 1000 feet. I followed him with the new flaps, banked only about 45 degrees, but still dropped below the treetops.
The men of the 364th were watching the fight and saw me go out of sight below the treetops. Several of them told me later that they thought I would crash. But they were wrong. All I had to do was move over behind his Spit XV again. He was apparently surprised. He had stated at our briefing that he would land after our fight to explain the superior capabilities of his Spit XV, but he ignored that promise and flew back to his base. I was most pleased with the reception I got upon landing."
-
part 2
by robert
I've previously looked at John Lowell's claims in detail, so excuse me for posting on this subject at length. I don't trust Lowell as a source because a very large percentage of his claims that can be checked turn out to be either factual mistakes or embellishments. He's also recounting the events for a book published in 1991 - close to 50 years after the fact. Memory at that distance can be hazy.
Let's concentrate on what he says in Top Guns: America's Fighter Aces Tell Their Stories, by Joe Foss and Matthew Brennan. The book from which I quote is the first hardcover printing of June, 1991, published by Pocket Books, ISBN 0-671-68317-9.
The only RAF ace named Donaldson was E.M. "Teddy" Donaldson. He was indeed an RAF ace, although he's much better known for setting a post-war world speed record in the Gloster Meteor. He was named C/O of No. 151 Squadron in November 1938, and led that Squadron until August 5, 1940. His score was 5 destroyed, 1 shared destroyed, and 1 damaged, all on Hurricanes in the summer of 1940. On June 30, 1940 he was shot down into the sea (reportedly by Adolf Galland!). I don't know if he suffered injuries that contributed to him being relieved of command and given a staff assignment in August 1940, but from what I can gather, he saw no more operational flying after 1940. One source I have says he was later attached to the Polish Wing, but it must have been in a primarily non-flying capacity as the detailed table of British aces who had kills with the Polish Wing in Polish Air Aces of World War 2, does not mention him, and neither do the two other detailed works I have on Polish fighter units in WW2. Donaldson, interestingly, spent most of 1942 in America, as an air gunnery instructor at Luke Field!
So it looks like if the identification is correct, Donaldson had not flown combat for four years, or at the very least had not had a kill for four years, when the mock combat occurred. He may have been a little out of practice...
Lowell claims that Donaldson was "one of the top English aces" - his five kills would put him somewhere around 800th on the list of RAF/Commonwealth aces. There's no disrespect intended towards Donaldson - he was an ace, and anyone who served during WW2 to ensure our freedom has my respect and gratitude, but he clearly was nowhere near being "one of the top English aces", as Lowell describes him.
In the short bio at the end of the book, Lowell is credited with "sixteen and a half confirmed; nine probable; eleven damaged."
However, according to the official USAAF figures, Lowell's actual totals are nowhere near that. Frank Olynyk's American Stars and Bars, the definitive book on the combat totals of US fighter aces, gives Lowell's actual totals as 7.5 kills, 1 probable, and 2 damaged, or about one-third of what Top Guns credits him with. Someone's way off here, and it isn't Olynyk, a man who has devoted himself to the study of USAAF fighter claims, and whose massive 668-page book is written directly from USAAF claim records. Lowell is credited by Olynyk with 9 ground kills, but these are different from air-to-air kills, and even though the 8th AF uniquely recorded ground kills at the time, they were not grouped in with air-to-air kills.
Lowell is also quoted in Top Guns as saying, "A few years ago, the American Fighter Aces had their annual reunion at Maxwell AFB in Alabama...Gabreski saw me and called me over to his little group...He introduced me as the highest scoring P-38 Ace in Europe..."
Admittedly this is not Lowell himself talking, but he doesn't bother to right the incorrect impression. Lowell wasn't anywhere close to being the leading P-38 ace in Europe. He had exactly 3 kills and 1 probable while flying the P-38, which puts him behind James Morris (7.333 ETO P-38 kills) and Robin Olds (5.0 ETO P-38 kills), and five other P-38 ETO aces.
Lowell incorrectly gives the model number of the Spitfire he talks about. He describes it as having "a five-bladed prop, a bigger engine, and more firepower." From the description, it would have to be either a Mk.XII or Mk.XIV, most probably a Mk.XIV. Lowell, however, calls it a Mk.XV, not once, but three times. There was no Spitfire Mk.XV. It didn't exist. The mark number XV was given to the Seafire Mk.XV, which was a Royal Navy aircraft, of which the first one was delivered in October, 1944 (the P-38/Spitfire duel must have taken place in June or July 1944, if Lowell was flying a P-38L as claimed, as the first P-38L was not delivered until June 1944, and the 364th FG was flying missions fully equipped with P-51s by July 27). The fact he gets the mark number wrong may seem insignificant, but it proves that he doesn't have much familiarity with the aircraft he's talking about, and it also proves that the authors did not edit the stories that they recount in the book for historical accuracy. (The book is a series of 27 chapters, each recounting a particular ace's career in his own words. It has a feel remarkably similar to Lawrence Ritter's great baseball book, The Glory of Their Times.)
Lowell quotes Donaldson as saying, "If one of you bloody bastards has enough guts, I'll fly mock combat above your field and show you how easily this Spit XV can whip your best pilot's ass!"
I'm sorry, but British people don't talk like that. Americans do. Heck, British people don't even use the word "ass". After the war, Donaldson was the air correspondant for several British newspapers and magazines. I've read his writing, and this doesn't sound like his style.
Lowell spends much time recounting an air battle between himself and Adolf Galland, when the latter was flying an Fw 190D. Lowell states "One of our last P-38 missions was a flight to protect bombers on a mission to Berlin. My squadron was flying top cover. We were attacked from above, out of the sun, by sixteen long nosed FW-190s."
Let's hold it right there for a minute. We know that this couldn't have been any later than late July, 1944, for they were an all-Mustang group by that date. When did the Fw 190D, the long-nosed variant, enter service? The Fw 190D-9 entered service with III./JG 54 in September, 1944, two months after the latest date that the fight could have taken place, given Lowell's account. The type of aircraft he claims that he fought in squadron strength was not even in service!
A poster on another WW2 board who has looked into Lowell's story in detail has tried to reconcile Lowell's claim by seeing if it was possible that Galland was flying a prototype Fw 190D, but says that, "There's a complete list of the prototypes and their history. I couldn't find any suitable prototype that might have been used by Galland - and Lowell mentions an entire flight of "long-nose" Fw 190s anyway, which is entirely impossible at the time. Lowell's account is contradictory in a number of points - for example, the position he quotes doesn't match the landscape he describes."
So it's not just me that has doubts about Lowell's credibility.
Lowell, by the way, describes Galland as having "over three hundred victories". Galland actually had 104, which the last time I checked was 196 less than 300.
-
Nice flamethread, Milo.
-
part 3
by robert
Lowell also claims that Galland, when asked if he shot down any P-38s, told him that he had shot down eight. Once again, this can be checked, and once again, it proves false - Galland had no P-38s among his 104 kills. After Galland's 97th kill on November 18, 1941, he was removed from combat flying to serve as General of Fighters. No P-38s, of course, were among those 97 kills, because the US had not even entered the war at that time! He had seven additional kills later in the war, including those while flying "unofficial" missions. These consisted of four B-26s, one B-17, one B-24, and one unidentified aircraft. If the aircraft had been a P-38, I'm sure, with its unmistakable profile, Galland would have been able to identify it. Even if it had been a P-38, that would give him one, not eight. I find it difficult to believe that Galland would either not know the types of aircraft he had shot down, or that he deliberately lied to Lowell. The most generous possibility is that Lowell misunderstood Galland's reply.
It occured to me to check to see if there was a retelling of the Lowell-Galland fight from Galland's side. I checked Fighter General, The Life of Adolf Galland: The Official Biography, by Col. Raymond F. Toliver & Trevor J. Constable, to see if there is any mention of it. There isn't any mention of it whatsoever. Galland, of course, was not an operational pilot at that time, serving as General of Fighters. He did make the occasional flight in an Luftwaffe fighter, to keep current with operational conditions. There is no mention of him using an Fw 190D at all, although he did use an Fw 190A-6, "White 2", in early 1944, and his escape from P-51s in that aircraft is mentioned.
At the time that the fight must have taken place, according to Lowell, Galland was concerned with organizing the fighter defense against the Allied invasion in Normandy. He took a lengthy inspection trip to assess the state of the German fighters in France shortly before the Allied breakout from Avranches, which would put it right in the timeframe that Lowell claims he fought Galland over Berlin.
Lowell later describes another fight with Fw 190s. "One of my missions in a P-51 took us southeast of Berlin to cover B-17 bombers...(I) leveled out at about fifty feet, right in the middle of the German Peenemunde air base...as I streaked across in front of the German hangars, I saw several ME-163 rocket fighters and blasted three of them."
Lowell claims he was "southeast of Berlin." Peendemunde is on an island, in the Baltic Sea.
Lowell also describes, during another mission, a running battle with an Me 262, which he claims he eventually shot down. Lowell states, "Ironically no gun camera record or other pilot witness gave me a 'victory' - only a 'probable'."
With no gun camera film or witnesses, it would be against policy to award a probable in a case such as described, and indeed Lowell was never credited with a probable (or even a damaged, or any other category) against an Me 262. His only credited probable was against an "Me 109" on March 6, 1944.
Lowell goes on in Top Guns to describe testing the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star after the war. He claims that he was "the first military test pilot to fly the P-80." Here's another story that can be verified - or not. The first military test pilot to fly the Shooting Star was actually a Capt. Lien, who first flew it in February, 1944, when Lowell was still in Europe.
Lowell goes on to say, "The three P-80s in England had been destroyed by [engine fires]. It happened this way. Several of the top aces in the ETO volunteered to fly the P-80 against the Germans. I wound up number five on the list, until the engine on the first P-80 flown in England caught fire, and the pilot bailed out and was seriously injured. Then I was number three on the list. The second P-80 caught fire at low altitude. Another pilot bailed out and was seriously injured. Then I was volunteer number two. The third jet caught fire on takeoff. The pilot cut the engine, folded the gear, slid off the end of the runway, and was badly burned. Now I was number one. V-E Day came shortly hereafter."
Quite the story. And once again, we can check independently to see how accurate Lowell is. He gets everything wrong. Everything.
I'll do a direct quote from Rene Francillon's Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, on the fate of the four YP-80s sent to Europe during WW2:
"Four YP-80As were allocated for deployment to Europe to demonstrate their capabilities to combat crews and to help in the development of defensive tactics to be used against the Luftwaffe's jet fighters. Two aircraft were sent to England in mid-December 1944 but on 28 January, 1945, during its second flight in the United Kingdom, 44-83026 crashed, killing its pilot. The other UK-deployed aircraft, 44-83027, was then lent to Rolls-Royce to be fitted as a testbed for the B-41 turbojet; on 14 November, 1945, it was destroyed in a crash-landing after engine failure. More fortunate were the two aircraft (44-83028 and 44-83029) shipped to the Mediterranean theater which survived their demonstration period in Italy."
So, let's see now. Lowell says there were three P-80s sent to England; there were two, one of which was loaned to Rolls-Royce as a test bed. Lowell says they were to be flown against the Germans; they were sent specifically as demonstration aircraft and to test combat tactics. Lowell claims all three crashed prior to V-E Day; one actually did. Lowell claims there were no pilot fatalities; the one crash prior to V-E Day was fatal.
I very rarely interject myself into my posts. But here, I feel I have to. I've worked professionally as a writer, editor, research assistant, and proofreader for over 25 years. It's what I do. You learn to get a feel for the validity of a story, just as a truck driver would learn the feel of his truck. Lowell's stories have caused the red flags to come out on more occasions than anything I've read in years. I'm sure that Lowell was a fine fighter pilot, and as I've mentioned, I'm grateful to anyone who defended our freedom in those terrible years. But that doesn't mean that we should just take everything the pilot says at face value without questioning it. Many aces, such as Pierre Clostermann, have had their claims severely questioned by post-war historians. It isn't being disrespectful to search for the truth...
The point is that Lowell consistently embellishes his stories to the point of disbelief and that many of his "facts" are repudiated by reliable historical sources. Much of what he says that can be checked turns out to be wrong. He is simply, in my opinion, not a credible source. One of Lowell's fellow aces has suggested that he was suffering from dementia or Alzheimers when he gave the interview quoted in Top Guns, and I think that's a very real possibility.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Nice flamethread, Milo.
Only you would see it as a flame Barbi. :rolleyes: But what else can we expect from you when your 2cd luv, the Spitfire, is mentioned. :rofl
It was posted to show that one can't take what some say at face value.
-
Galland never flew a 190D-9. It was pointed out in many threads over the years that Lowell was full of crap.. err embellishment in this regard (any suspected in many others) as the author of the above points out.
Once the AH P-38 mafia reads this Kurfürst will have been proven correct:
Nice flamethread, Milo.
Its inevitably coming...
-
Yeah, that`s the goal, Wotan.
But here`s something for the P-38 fans : if something is obviously nonsense, you can safely ignore it. Use your head and save your time.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Yeah, that`s the goal, Wotan.
But here`s something for the P-38 fans : if something is obviously nonsense, you can safely ignore it. Use your head and save your time.
Good then we can safely ignore your posts on how uber the 109 is suppose to be. :D :aok
Naturally, the German luvers, Wotan and Barbi, again show their lack of reading comprehension. They are just trying to stir up trouble, as usual. The thread has nothing to do about the mock combat between the P-38 and Spitfire.
-
I never mentioned "spitfire".
I simply agreed with original authors point:
The point is that Lowell consistently embellishes his stories to the point of disbelief and that many of his "facts" are repudiated by reliable historical sources.
I also pointed out that the AH 'P-38s are awesome' crowd will be along shortly to 'set us all straight'.
-
Quite good Wotan ;)
And Kurfurst:
" Use your head and save your time."
Try it once :D
-
The Lowell story about the duel with the Spitfire has always been a little suspect because each time the story is told it is always a different Spitfire. If it did take place the it was most likely against Donaldson and as +Tiff mentioned in a post awhile back about this, Donaldson was hardly at the top of his game at the time the duel took place.
As for the Galland vs. Lowell...well, I've heard both sides and frankly, Galland's word isn't any better than Lowell's.
But there is one that that cannot be held in dispute and that is the prowess Lowell showed in the P-38. Regardless of what his kill record was, he was one of the few that could squeeze every bit of performance out of the Lightning.
ack-ack
-
Yep that's old news. Hohun and I went round on that one back on the AW boards way back when :)
It made me learn more about the D9 as there were so many reports of D9s in combat both by RAF and USAAF pilots prior to it's actual introduction that it left some doubt in my mind as to whether the Galland, Lowell meeting could have taken place. At this point I don't think it did. If it did, Galland certainly wasn't in a D9.
No doubt the other story was a Spitfire XIV. The XII had a 4 blade prop. There was a Seafire XV floating around to the bases at that time too as some of the Spit XII drivers of 41 squadron were asked to fly it to get their opinions on it. But the 5 blade prop could only have been an XIV
It was witnessed by enough folks that I don't doubt the story in terms of what happened.
As the quoted writer mentions, the only Donaldson that was an Ace was Teddy and he'd been out of the firing line for a while. If he made the mistakes that many vet Merlin Spit pilots did when flying the Griffon birds, in trying to fly them like an early Spit, he didn't help himself. His combat time was in Hurricanes as well.
I think within the 364th and the 38 world, there is agreement that Lowell was one of the better 38 drivers around.
What were we arguing about again? :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
I think it was about Lowell's prowess of exaggeration Guppy.
Or, like how he agreed to cross-over at 5,000 feet, climbed a helluva higher than that and then cheated on the first merge, going 'close to 600mph'.
But then again, that's not really surprising, since that's what they do in AH already. Anyone ever met a P-38 on your six that did not come from higher alts? :D
-
That is a boring LW tactic,
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
As for the Galland vs. Lowell...well, I've heard both sides and frankly, Galland's word isn't any better than Lowell's.
AFAIK, there is no Galland's word. He simply does not mention this kind of fight in any of his books or interviews, which is odd, given the Lowell's dramatic description. However he has given his general opinion of the P-38:
CUNNINGHAM: The Me.110 was a disappointment, then, as you say?
GALLAND: Absolutely, absolutely. And I think the Lightning was an equal mistake.
CUNNINGHAM: The P-38?
GALLAND: Yes, the P-38.
CUNNINGHAM: You mentioned in your book that P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat, that you can..
GALLAND (laughing): Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.
http://home.tiscali.be/ed.ragas/awshistory/awsgalland.html
It it difficult to think he would have such an opinion after experincing a fight Lowell claims.
-
Originally posted by TimRas
AFAIK, there is no Galland's word. He simply does not mention this kind of fight in any of his books or interviews, which is odd, given the Lowell's dramatic description. However he has given his general opinion of the P-38:
CUNNINGHAM: The Me.110 was a disappointment, then, as you say?
GALLAND: Absolutely, absolutely. And I think the Lightning was an equal mistake.
CUNNINGHAM: The P-38?
GALLAND: Yes, the P-38.
CUNNINGHAM: You mentioned in your book that P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat, that you can..
GALLAND (laughing): Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.
http://home.tiscali.be/ed.ragas/awshistory/awsgalland.html
It it difficult to think he would have such an opinion after experincing a fight Lowell claims.
:rofl Galland's opinion on the P-38 is almost as amusing as it is worthless, considering that according to the expert quoted above, he either NEVER faced one or was NEVER able to shoot one down. If you are going to castigate Lowell for "embellishment", then Galland has to be right up there with him.:eek: But then, you knew that already, didn't you.
-
At least Galland was giving his personal opinon, rather than lie about things that didn't (or, are highly unlikely to) happen, Cap'n.
-
Where's Widewing on this one? Came across some stuff on the web from him in 1999 having this very same discussion regarding Galland and the 38 :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
A p38 was not always a P38.
As soon as they had boosted ailerons etc, they were really really ready to have a scruffle with anything.
Rall was pressed about the P38. He actually said that they were preferred targets! (he would send the students after them I heard)
However, while flying one, he was most impressed by its characteristics. That one had boosted ailerons.
BTW, he did meet some in the air, and shot one down.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
At least Galland was giving his personal opinon, rather than lie about things that didn't (or, are highly unlikely to) happen, Cap'n.
Haven't read much Galland, have you.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Angus
A p38 was not always a P38.
As soon as they had boosted ailerons etc, they were really really ready to have a scruffle with anything.
Rall was pressed about the P38. He actually said that they were preferred targets! (he would send the students after them I heard)
However, while flying one, he was most impressed by its characteristics. That one had boosted ailerons.
BTW, he did meet some in the air, and shot one down.
The problem is we're also talking "Aces" opinions.
Here's a combat report from a relatively low time 38 driver from the 370th Fighter Group, flying a non boosted controls, no dive flap J-10 in the summer of 44 vs a 109.
What can we take from his experience? He won it, and was lugging bombs throughout the fight, unknown to him. Does that mean the 109 was a hunk of junk? Nah! Does it mean the 38 was an uber plane? Nah! But it certainly was capable in the right hands.
You have to include the pilot with the plane which makes it tough to generalize :)
Dan/CorkyJr
Lt. Royal Madden 370th FG, July 31, 1944
“Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left. I then made a vertical right turn and observed Blue Two below and close and Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me. I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.
We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet. This boy was good and he had me plenty worried as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection. I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst. There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off. He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.
Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight.”
-
Originally posted by Angus
A p38 was not always a P38.
As soon as they had boosted ailerons etc, they were really really ready to have a scruffle with anything.
Rall was pressed about the P38. He actually said that they were preferred targets! (he would send the students after them I heard)
However, while flying one, he was most impressed by its characteristics. That one had boosted ailerons.
BTW, he did meet some in the air, and shot one down.
Only the late J and L models had boosted ailerons. Not many were in the ETO, at least in the 8th AF units.
Boosted ailerons only decreased roll lag, giving the P-38 the ability to "flick roll" at high speeds. Below 300MPH, it made little difference. To pilots using heavy rudder input and differential throttle application I'd say it made little difference other than decreasing complexity. OTOH, I'd say they still used heavy rudder input anyway, at the least.
While boosted ailerons were an improvement, I'd say the other fixes contributed more to the improvements of the P-38.
By the way, I noticed that Art Heiden remarked about the substantial increase in power of the P-38L over all previous models, and did so on numeroius occaisions. The ONLY possible explanation for this would be the operation of the "-30 Allisons" at their higher power ratings, since the USAAF rated the P-38L as having the same power and actually being slower than the P-38J.
I have not personally swapped emails with Art since I was helping with the McGuire story a couple years or so ago. I sent him an email when I found out he had the stroke a couple of weeks ago, I don't know when or if he will respond, but if he does, I'll ask him about that. Maybe Widewing can ask him about that as well, since I'm sure he WILL talk to Art.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
At least Galland was giving his personal opinon, rather than lie about things that didn't (or, are highly unlikely to) happen, Cap'n.
By the way, his actions were in direct conflict with his opinions. When the first P-38 group went operational, Galland immediately had to overhaul his fighter tactics for attacking the bombers.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Where's Widewing on this one? Came across some stuff on the web from him in 1999 having this very same discussion regarding Galland and the 38 :)
Dan/CorkyJr
I would imagine he might sit this one out for a while. He said in the other P-38 thread he was going to keep in touch with Art Heiden for a few days after Art's recent stroke.
Too bad we can't get in touch with any of the other pilots present for the gathering at Maxwell AFB, to ask about the alleged conversation between Lowell and Galland.
-
Haven't read much Galland, have you.
As a matter of fact, I haven't. So please enlighten me.
What did he lie about just exactly?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
As a matter of fact, I haven't. So please enlighten me.
What did he lie about just exactly?
Instead, just for your own edification and such, I suggest you read some of the Galland stuff and compare it to what others of the Luftwaffe wrote. You'd probably enjoy it more if you read it yourself anyway.
-
Is that a "no, I won't tell you", or a "I don't know myself"?
Anyone else wanna tell me? I truly have no idea at all. Just what did Galland say about the P-38 that was full of lies and crap?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Is that a "no, I won't tell you", or a "I don't know myself"?
Anyone else wanna tell me? I truly have no idea at all. Just what did Galland say about the P-38 that was full of lies and crap?
Go here:
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
An interesting debate. Widewing (C.C. Jordan) comments on Galland and his views of the 38
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Of course, if you read what is posted at the link Dan gives, eventually, you'll find out that "cdb" is a fake. He is in fact neither of the people he claims to be.
That being said, there is plenty of good information in that thread.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Is that a "no, I won't tell you", or a "I don't know myself"?
Anyone else wanna tell me? I truly have no idea at all. Just what did Galland say about the P-38 that was full of lies and crap?
Look, I don't have time to go looking for quotes from books that include Galland's quotes. You can read just as well as I. You CLAIM that Galland was not a liar, only Lowell was. Galland is well known as a Luftwaffe apologist and a self promoter prone to embillishment at best, and not known for telling the truth unless forced to.
Now, with regards to Galland's opinion (by your account, his personal opinion) of the P-38, an "expert" quoted above claims Galland never shot a P-38 down, and likely never faced one. So his "personal opinion" is based on zero personal experience, and has as much validity is it does basis on personal experience. He likely never shot one down, and further may never have even fought one. So he bases his opinion on what?
If you really want to find something out for your own personal satisfaction, the best thing you can do is go look for yourself. By doing so, you'll remove the majority of bias from others from the evidence, and be more likely to get something from it. If you are interested, you'll find out for yourself, if you just want to "argue" nothing anyone else posts will mean anything anyway.
I do not have the time to go look for references, and I will not attempt to quote from memory, my memory is not perfect. I found much of what Galland wrote to be at least suspect. I am not alone, even some of his fellow Luftwaffe officers found the same.
-
Look, I don't have time to go looking for quotes from books that include Galland's quotes. You can read just as well as I. You CLAIM that Galland was not a liar, only Lowell was. Galland is well known as a Luftwaffe apologist and a self promoter prone to embillishment at best, and not known for telling the truth unless forced to.
Lowell has lied about a lot of stuff as pointed out by Milo's cross post...
Galland didn't lie about his opinion of the P-38. He didn't lie about being in combat with P-38s. He never mentions flying a D-9, let alone being in combat with P-38s. The reason why is it didn't happen. As a matter of fact even your hero Widewing (in that quote Guppy provided) says:
P-38's were rarely encountered in the ETO. I doubt if Galland ever faced them himself.
His opinion about the P-38 isn't his alone either. Many in the LW weren't to impressed with it.
Cap'n Crunch lecturing folks on bias is a joke...
Milo you see Kurfürst was right:
Nice flamethread, Milo.
-
I'd expect nothing less than the above response from you Wotan, by starting out with name calling, and bringing absolutely nothing else to the thread, you've proven the "flame thread" quote more than anyone.
Congratulations. You've fulfilled your own self prophecy.
-
Kweassa do you have access to Galland's 'The First and the Last'?
If you can read german I would suggest trying to find a copy of the original German first edition. The English translations are sometimes poorly done...
Anyway you will see his opinion of the P-38 and its consistant with the linked interview TimRas provided.
-
It's kinda difficult to grab hold of books from foreign publications in my country, Wotan.
Anyways, from what I gathered between the links Guppy and TimRas posted (thanks, guys..), and Milo's informative posts on Lowell's "claims" and the counter argument to it... my impression is that Galland didn't really know what he is talking about, and he's basically dealing out the general impressions that high-ranking LW officials had at that time.
If the Lowell-Galland encounter did not happen...
and it is doubtful that Galland ever combated P-38s...
(and it's not surprising, since technically this guy was not a mere "pilot" any more)..
and his comments on the comparison between the 110 and the P-38.... hmm..
My assumption is that Galland misjudged, or did not have much knowledge on the P-38 itself, and just basically assumed that the development of the P-38 was the USAAF's version of a "destroyer-fighter", a heavy, well-armed two engine fighter which was designed for long range escort.. which as a result ended up as a fighter which required its own escorts, as the ill-judgement during the course of BoB has proven to the 110. The impression I get from his interview which TimRas posted, is that Galland is imagining the P-38 to be something akin to the Me110...
Sounds like he was dealing loose opinions on some of what his pilots might say.. like, go to the front, share a round of drinks, discuss the USAAF... someone would mention a P-38.. others would say this and that... and Galland would just assume things based on their comments and stuff.
At least, that's the impression I got.
(Although I still didn't see where exactly Galland "lied" about stuff in all the linked articles... as opposed to Lowell, with blatant exaggerations IMO, if, the counter article Milo posted has any kind of credibility.)
-
Well Galland wasn't speaking about the relative performance between the 110 and the P-38.
From The First and the Last:
The bombers of the Eighth AAF were escorted by P-38 Lightnings. This was a twin-engine long-distance fighter which had similar shortcomings in combat as our ME-110. Our fighters were clearly superior to it'
He was referring to the concept of a large twin-engined long-range (escort) fighter and its ability to cover / protect bombers..
As was proven in the ETO by both the Western Allies, and the Germans, this type of concept wasn't up to the task. There may have been varying degrees of reasons but as the P-51 and P-47 (especially later in the war) demonstrated these were clearly superior to the the P-38 in combating the LW and protecting the bombers.
No doubt the P-38 fanbois will dispute this, what else is new. However, as I said Galland isn't the only LW expert who held this belief. The fanbois will call Galland and those others liars or apologists and quote folks like Steinhoff (see Interview (http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/johannes_steinhoff.htm) )
WWII: Please describe your humorous encounter with a Lockheed P-38 pilot named Widen in Italy in 1944.
Steinhoff: This is a good story. I was test-flying an Me-109 with my aide near our base at Foggia. This was before I had been exiled from Germany, during my first tour as Kommodore of JG.77. Well, we were attacked at low level by a flight of P-38 Lightnings, about 100 American fighters in all, but the two of us figured, why not attack? We turned into them, and I flew through their formation going in the opposite direction, getting good strikes on a couple of them. I poured a good burst into this P-38 and the pilot rolled over, and I saw him bail out. I had this on gun camera also. Well, he was picked up and made a POW, and I invited him to my tent for a drink and dinner, as well as to spend the night. We drank some of the local wine... and drank and drank. I thought to myself, "What am I going to do with this guy?" Well, it was long after midnight, so I lay down in my tent and stretched my legs so I could reach his head. He woke up and said, "Don't worry, I won't run away, you have my word as an officer and a gentleman. Besides, you got me too drunk." We slept, and he kept his word, and I never placed a guard on him.
WWII: So you subdued your opponent with alcohol?
Steinhoff: Yes, that's right, and it worked very well, you know. He was a very likable man, and I was very pleased to have the victory, but as I told him, I was even more pleased to see him uninjured and safe.
WWII: Of all the Allied fighters you encountered, which was the most difficult to handle with a good pilot at the controls?
Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 [Mustang] was deadly because of the long range, and it could cover any air base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying the jets.
They site Steinhoff as proof positive of the P-38s prowess.
-
I have read many "anecdotal" comments re the P-38 series, both from Allied and Axis pilots, it seems that there was a wide range of opinion on the type from both camps. I must say, it looks like it depends on what part of the war and what encounter they are talking about. I put less emphasis on these anyways, as its only one peice of the answer. Its not possible to make sweeping judgements on a fighter a/c based on what one pilot says (good or bad). The reasons are many.
I think the P-38 is one of the more controversial Allied types that flew in WW2, thats becoming clear. Also the opinion of it amongst allied pilots varyied quite a bit between the ETO and the PTO. Another example is the P-39 Airacobra, for all the "bad press" it got, the Soviets seemed to be very fond of it, again, different circumstances, and different pilots. Its interesting to see how different certain groups all saw the same a/c sometimes.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Well Galland wasn't speaking about the relative performance between the 110 and the P-38.
From The First and the Last:
He was referring to the concept of a large twin-engined long-range (escort) fighter and its ability to cover / protect bombers..
As was proven in the ETO by both the Western Allies, and the Germans, this type of concept wasn't up to the task. There may have been varying degrees of reasons but as the P-51 and P-47 (especially later in the war) demonstrated these were clearly superior to the the P-38 in combating the LW and protecting the bombers.
Where does it say that the P-38 was a failure as a bomber escort? Any failures can be directly attributed to the tactics the 8th AAF high command forced on the various fighter groups that plagued all units of the 8th, not just the P-38 units.
And the fact that Galland thought the P-38 was like an US version of the bf110 just shows how little he knew about the plane. But then, as I think +Tiff or Savage pointed out, a lot of pilot's perception of the plane is created not by the plane itself but rather how the other guy flew it.
If I was a LW pilot that encountered one of the first P-38s that had a pilot that wasn't properly trained in the P-38 (a big problem when the P-38 was first introduced) and was easily able to shoot it down, I'd be inclinded to say that the P-38 was a far inferior plane than the Kraut plane I few. But then if I happened to cross paths with lets say, Olds, Ethel or even Lowell and got my bellybutton handed back to me, then I'm pretty sure that those guys would then be inclined to say, "damn, that Kraut plane isn't all that hot."
You can disagree all you want Wotan but the simple fact is, in capable hands, the P-38 was a match for anything the LW could throw at it.
Now this will get your leiderhosen all bunched up...why is that US pilots that were in the PTO and then transfered to the ETO had increased success? Could it be the opposition was easier in Euro?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Go here:
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html
An interesting debate. Widewing (C.C. Jordan) comments on Galland and his views of the 38
I looked briefly into - it`s so dang long - but well, finished it with mixed feelings. He has some good info on the Lighting, but only basic on the other aircraft he compares it. It`s a text written by a fan, and sometimes it`s more like wishful thinking rather than a critical view of the pros and lackings.
Did he put together the 'forked tailed devil' article somewhere for it`s very similiar reading with claims of 700+ speed etc.
Otherwise, this thread is a storm in a glass of water, stirred up by Milo.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I looked briefly into - it`s so dang long - but well, finished it with mixed feelings. He has some good info on the Lighting, but only basic on the other aircraft he compares it. It`s a text written by a fan, and sometimes it`s more like wishful thinking rather than a critical view of the pros and lackings.
Did he put together the 'forked tailed devil' article somewhere for it`s very similiar reading with claims of 700+ speed etc.
Otherwise, this thread is a storm in a glass of water, stirred up by Milo.
Well, as I warned everyone, the "cdb" in that thread has been found out as a fraud on two seperate occaisions, as Widewing (known in the thread as C.C. Jordan) explains within the thread. At one point, the guy claimed to be George Culleers (he spelled it wrong) and he also claimed to be Elliot Dent, or a relative of Elliot Dent at one time or another.
With respect to what Widewing wrote in that thread, to the best of my knowledge, it is factual and correct. The data he posts is direct from Lockheed, as furnished by noted author and former Lockheed engineer Warren Bodie, who also founded the Split S Society. Warren has at times furnished me with the same data. He does have access to both the Lockheed archives and the USAF archives. Warren also wrote that book with the input and blessings of Kelly Johnson and some of the other Lockheed staff and test pilots, including Tony Levier. Kelly Johnson was as critical as anyone of the P-38, and the constraints placed upon it, both by the original bid specifications and by the USAAC and War Production Board later.
As far as there being more facts and data regarding the P-38 than other planes, well, it was of course a thread ABOUT the P-38.
As far as anyone in that thread having anything to do with Martin Caiden's book "The Forked Tail Devil" I do not know, but I do not think so. Captain Art Heiden was the one who inspired Caiden to write the book. But it was not authored by Art. There is a section, I believe it is at the end, where Art says some nice things about the book, but I am not convinced he was truly satisfied. Art wanted a book, and he got it, and was polite and glad to have it. I would not say that Art felt it was the gospel by any stretch.
I do think Widewing did quote Art Heiden in that thread, it's been a while since I read it. What Art says there is fact. I have known Art since around 2000, although I do not swap emails with him nearly so often anymore. What Art and Stan say on Widewing's site is factual as well. Neither will hesitate to tell you what was wrong with the P-38, and what its shortcomings were.
Bodie is a far better source for both the P-38 and the P-47 than just about anyone else. And Bodie is just as quick to criticize Lockheed and the P-38 as he is to praise them.
-
Now this will get your leiderhosen all bunched up...why is that US pilots that were in the PTO and then transfered to the ETO had increased success? Could it be the opposition was easier in Euro?
More opportunity to score under air superiority (or damn near). It is also easier to fly escort and engage bomber destroyers because you then have freedom of action. The LW's primary objective post '43 in the west was to hit the bombers. Its completely different then free hunting or loose escort.
Die Amerikaner kamen immer in die Masse
The P-38 was nothing special.
And the fact that Galland thought the P-38 was like an US version of the bf110 just shows how little he knew about the plane. But then, as I think +Tiff or Savage pointed out, a lot of pilot's perception of the plane is created not by the plane itself but rather how the other guy flew it.
That 'fact' isn't what Galland said. You need understand the 'context' and not jump to all sorts of silly conclusions. Much like Galland's statement about wanting Spitfires. Unless we understand the context we can make up any meaning we want.
The long ranged twin engined escort fighter proved to be a failure on all sides. If it was such a resounding success why develop anything else?
OH thats right the USAAF hated the P-38...
The P-38 was the plane of choice for nachwuchs to engage by the LW.
It wasn't that great in North Africa. The 14th Fighter Group was temporarily withdrawn from battle at one point after being badly mauled.
It sure wasn't that great in WETO.
Add in the cost of the P-38:
Weighted by annual production, averaged costs derived from USAAF Statistical Digest:
P-38 - $114,351.30
P-47 - $98,335.40
P-51 - $55,109.75
You could get 2 P-51s for 1 P-38. Are you going to say the P-38 could have replaced the Mustang?
I'd be inclinded to say that the P-38 was a far inferior plane than the Kraut plane I few.
What 'plane have you flown'? You are talking AH, right?
but then if I happened to cross paths with lets say, Olds, Ethel or even Lowell and got my bellybutton handed back to me, then I'm pretty sure that those guys would then be inclined to say, "damn, that Kraut plane isn't all that hot."
Well the facts are most Ami combat stories include qualifiers like:
This boy was good...
In fact you have Ami pilots tripping all over each other to make claims they fought or beat the LW's best. See Lowell's fantasy about fighting Adi Galland.
See Guppy's account of the 'relatively low time 38 driver' who fought a real 'expert'...
Almost every Ami account is like that. I don't put much into these fish stories. I enjoy a good story but its the fanbois who eat this stuff up like prime rib and regurgitate it like its the word of God..
I am no fan of Galland, most of his post war writings and interviews are certainly self-serving. Shifting blame to others rather then accepting his own short comings and roll in the LW's defeat. Many a LW veteran are guilty of this.
But Lowell takes the cake...
Apparently to a point where some would speculate he's mentally ill:
The point is that Lowell consistently embellishes his stories to the point of disbelief and that many of his "facts" are repudiated by reliable historical sources. Much of what he says that can be checked turns out to be wrong. He is simply, in my opinion, not a credible source. One of Lowell's fellow aces has suggested that he was suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's when he gave the interview quoted in Top Guns, and I think that's a very real possibility.
Where does it say that the P-38 was a failure as a bomber escort? Any failures can be directly attributed to the tactics the 8th AAF high command forced on the various fighter groups that plagued all units of the 8th, not just the P-38 units.
Of course it wasn't the plane or the pilots it was their stupid leadership...
as I said:
No doubt the P-38 fanbois will dispute this, what else is new.
Much like the Cap'n's claim:
By the way, his actions were in direct conflict with his opinions. When the first P-38 group went operational, Galland immediately had to overhaul his fighter tactics for attacking the bombers.
He would have you believe that the LW had re-adapt its tactics simply because the P-38 was in theater. The fact is the reason tactics were adjusted (and they were adjusted many times) was because the allies now had a plane (it could have been any plane as long as it had range) with range to escort the bombers to and from target.
The LW's primary objective was the bombers, before the allies had a long range fighter the gruppen went after the bombers with abandon. With escort they had to adjust and assigned a gruppe to cover the bomber attackers. This changed many times through out the course of the war and wasn't a direct result of the P-38 alone.
Its all about understanding context...
Even Steinhoff who gave praise to the P-38s attack capability had no qualms about turning head long into what he claims 'was at least 100 P-38s'. (I would chalk that claim up to being a 'fish story as well)
Kurfürst
Widewing is definitely a fan of the P-38 (and everything else American). I am sure that is what you picked up on when you read the link Guppy provided.
-
You know, Wotan, you amuse the Hell out of me. Everyone who disagrees with you is a "fanboi".:rolleyes: They are also biased. Every account by an American pilot is a crock, and the account by the Germans are gospel. The next time you want to lecture anyone about bias, read some of your garbage first.
You are more full of crap than Galland or even Lowell could possibly dream of.
The P-38's record stands for itself. Combat loss to combat loss, its record against the Luftwaffe was 4:1 in its favor. At least. That's been backed up and correlated from both USAF and Luftwaffe records. Go look it up.
And I suppose you'll tell us next the P-38 did well in the Pacific because it was all low altitude, Japanese planes were hopelessly overmatched, and their pilots were totally incompetent.:rolleyes:
The P-38 was no miracle, nor was it a wonder plane, but considering how well it did only a fool or an idiot would try to tell anyone it was a second rate fighter at best.
-
You know, I should know better than to allow myself to stoop down to the level of responding to Wotan in a somewhat like manner. Everyone else here was pretty decent, but Wotan was just like he always is. Namecalling and baseless accusations are all he ever brings to anything. I find the idea of feeding useless trolls to be less than acceptable.
To the rest of you, continue on if you like, I'll waste no more time here, and I'll not bother to respond to the likes of Wotan again. There are actually intelligent people here to have reasonable discussions with, but he ain't one of them.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The P-38's record stands for itself. Combat loss to combat loss, its record against the Luftwaffe was 4:1 in its favor. At least. That's been backed up and correlated from both USAF and Luftwaffe records. Go look it up..
Hmmm-hmmm. Let`s not get into the credibility of US claims. All US combat reports look the same to me : a handful of yanks meets a horde of germans, and then shots down 3/4 of them with only 1 loss on their side. Highly believable, especially
Take the 14th July 1944 incident when they met the Pumas.
15 Lightnings, they said they met '50-60 109&190s' and shot down about 15 of them. Their own losses were 5.
In reality, they shot down a single Messer, there were 32 109s they met (the only time I know 'we' were outnumbering 'them'), and no 190s...
Besides even if true - of which I mild doubts with such 'look it up yourself' reference - what`s so special about a fighter plane having 4:1 kill ratio ?
Hell, what did they met in combat :
fighters
bombers
light bombers/attack aircraft
recon planes
liason planes
transport planes
etc.
Now how many types of the above have equal chance of winning the fight against any fighter? Armed-to-the-teeth B-17s, even the B-29 failed in that...
Any fighter class aircraft can basically meet two types of aircraft : enemy fighters and cannon fodder. And there is far more encounters with the latter type. It`s not hard to build up a good success rate with those encounters, even if you`d have bad record against enemy fighters.
And I agree in Wotan that it`s nothing special. Basically, the same pre-war, twinengine dead-end fighter design like the Bf 110 and the many other 'heavy fighters' who`s name we don`t even know... pre war engines were too weak. The only way to achieve the desired performance/range was using two of them. And that`s is just bad for a fighter, hence Galland`s analogy with the Bf 110. Sluggishness due to the weight, size and inertia cannot be overcomed, no matter what tricks are used.
Oh and I am sure the 110 had rather positive record too (ask the Poles or Bomber Command). Still just a dead-end curiosity.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You know, I should know better than to allow myself to stoop down to the level of responding to Wotan in a somewhat like manner. Everyone else here was pretty decent, but Wotan was just like he always is. Namecalling and baseless accusations are all he ever brings to anything. I find the idea of feeding useless trolls to be less than acceptable.
To the rest of you, continue on if you like, I'll waste no more time here, and I'll not bother to respond to the likes of Wotan again. There are actually intelligent people here to have reasonable discussions with, but he ain't one of them.
Name calling? You mean Cap'n Crunch? Isn't he a likable Cereal Clown pedaling sugar coated flour to children at 6 dollars a box?
I think it fits fine.
Baseless accusations? Name one..?
First your 4 to 1 claim is crap just like Kurfurst points out.
Here's some from North Africa:
On 26 December 1942, 1st FG escorted B-17s, but lost two P-38s to German fighters while the German units sustained no losses.
On 2 January 1943, 27th FS/1st FG dispatched eight P-38s to escort B-17s, but these were bounced by 12 Bf 109s of ÍI./JG 51 and the C.O., Capt. Glenn, and Lt. H. K. Smith were both shot down - by Fw. Anton Hafner and Ofw. Otto Schulz - without German losses.
On 8 January 1943, eight P-38s of 49th FS/14th FG, along with some P-38s of 97th FS/82nd FG and P-40s of 58th FS/33rd FG clashed with II./JG 2. In their excellent "Fw 190 in North Africa" (pp. 71 - 72), Jessen & Arthy write: "In this slaughter, the 48th FS/14th FG suffered three aircraft destroyed and two damaged. 58th FS/33rd FG and 97th FS/82nd FG losses are unknown."
On 10 January 1943, 14th FG again dispatched eight P-38s on a mission, but these were attacked by Ofw Otto Schulz (II./JG 51) and his wingman, and one P-38 was lost without German losses.
On 11 January 1943, ten P-38s of 1st FG escorting B-17s again came across II./JG 51 and lost two more P-38s (one of them to Ofw. Otto Schulz) without German losses.
On 15 January 1943, eight P-38s of 48th FS/14th FG escorted bombers, while eight more from the 49th FS escorted other bombers. Both formations were attacked by Luftwaffe fighters. Capt. Fulmer was seen to crash into the sea, while Lt. Auton and Lt. Lawrence failed to return. Shores et al describe a third Lightning mission that same day ("Fighters over Tunisia", p. 153) : "Other P-38s escorted 18 B-26s . . . 12 Bf 109s of II./JG 51 attacked . . . records confirm the loss of two P-38s during this mission, the unit involved is not specified."
On 21 January 1943, another two P-38s were shot down out of a formation of ten 82nd FG P-38s.
On 23 January 1943, 16 P-38s of 48th FS/14th FG clashed with Bf 109s of II./JG 51 of about the same strength as the Americans, and the P-38 pilots Lt. Schottlekorb, Lt. Mark Shipman, Lt. Stuteville, Lt. Harley, Lt. Yates, and Lt. Soliday - a total of six Lightnings - were shot down without any German losses. Again Ofw. Otto Schulz - the Eastern Front veteran who started to emerge as a first class "Lightning killer" - was among the successful German pilots.
Here we can clearly see that II./JG 51 was the main reason why the 14th Fighter Group was so badly mauled that it had to be temporarily withdrawn from battle.
At least ten, maybe over a dozen, of this unit's P-38s were shot down in only three of those examples above, all by II./JG 51 - which apparently sustained no own loss to P-38s during those days.
On 4 February 1943, ten P-38s of 1st FG escorted B-17s, and four P-38s were lost in combat with Bf 109s.
The P-38's record stands for itself. Combat loss to combat loss, its record against the Luftwaffe was 4:1 in its favor. At least. That's been backed up and correlated from both USAF and Luftwaffe records. Go look it up.
The thing I have looked it up (even Guppy's claim by Lt. Royal Madden 370th FG, July 31, 1944) and its crap. Just like Kurfürst says:
All US combat reports look the same to me : a handful of yanks meets a horde of Germans, and then shots down 3/4 of them with only 1 loss on their side. Highly believable, especially
Over claiming aside this thread is about the outrageous claims made by Lowell.
He claims to have fought Galland while Galland was flying a 190D-9. Do you think that is truth or embellishment?
Both you and AKAK claim Galland lied so prove it. Talk about baseless accusations...
-
Originally posted by Wotan
What 'plane have you flown'? You are talking AH, right?
I never said I flew a plane. Don't know where you're getting that.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Both you and AKAK claim Galland lied so prove it. Talk about baseless accusations...
This is what I said...
As for the Galland vs. Lowell...well, I've heard both sides and frankly, Galland's word isn't any better than Lowell's.
I think with Galland's habit of also over stating things and painting things to make himself look better, then yes, what he said can also be taken with a grain of salt.
And as Savage pointed out, the P-38's combat record in the ETO speaks for itself. No use rehashing the war because you're bummed the LW got spanked. I declare this thread over.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Here's some from North Africa:
For the American view of those dates, go here. (http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/)
This is the official USAAF WWII Combat Chronology by Carter & Mueller hosted on the Rutgers University server. You can download the entire document in plain text or html formats.
You will find some disagreements with what you have posted.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Barbi's prediction, and Wotan's seconding, that this thread would turn into flame has come true. Thanks should be given to Barbi and Wotan for pouring on the fuel .:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Widewing
For the American view of those dates, go here. (http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/)
This is the official USAAF WWII Combat Chronology by Carter & Mueller hosted on the Rutgers University server. You can download the entire document in plain text or html formats.
You will find some disagreements with what you have posted.
My regards,
Widewing
Example 26 December:
What I posted:
On 26 December 1942, 1st FG escorted B-17s, but lost two P-38s to German fighters while the German units sustained no losses.
From your link:
In Tunisia, B-17s, with fighter escort, hit the harbor and shipping at
Bizerte; heavy AA and fighter attacks account for two B-17s and two P-38s
shot down; P-38s claim two Fw 190s destroyed.
Have you read Focke-Wulf Fw 190 in North Africa by:
Andrew Arthy and Morten Jessen
released in 2004?
They were no FW lost during this action.
I am not going through them all for you but here's the next one:
I posted:
On 2 January 1943, 27th FS/1st FG dispatched eight P-38s to escort B-17s, but these were bounced by 12 Bf 109s of ÍI./JG 51 and the C.O., Capt. Glenn, and Lt. H. K. Smith were both shot down - by Fw. Anton Hafner and Ofw. Otto Schulz - without German losses.
In Tunisia, B-17s bomb the
harbor and shipping at La Goulette. Escorting P-38s and Bf 109s engage in
air battle, each side losing two aircraft.
The JG51 loss list show no 109 losses during this action.
Do you have access to Fighters over Tunisia by:
Christopher Shores
William N. Hess
Hans Ring..?
Even so are saying that web link provides a complete listing of all US claims and losses? I hope you are not that naive seeing how there are many 'white spots' in regards to US losses (as there are with all the combatant Nations).
I think with Galland's habit of also over stating things and painting things to make himself look better, then yes, what he said can also be taken with a grain of salt.
That may very well be but what does it have to do with Lowell's claim that he fought Galland while Galland was in a D-9?
As for the Galland vs. Lowell...well, I've heard both sides and frankly, Galland's word isn't any better than Lowell's.
You claim to have 'heard from both sides'? Both sides of what? The incident Lowell describes? If so please provide a link or source as to where you read Galland's side of this story.
If your reply to the questioning of Lowell's claim is that Galland is an opportunist then so what, that does nothing to validate Lowell.
If the P-38 has a record of 4 to 1 (I even read claims of 6 to 1) verses the LW then it shouldn't be that hard for the Cap'n to prove it.
If folks can't make an effort to back up what they claim then yes this thread is dead.
-
Always amazing where these conversations end up.
I keep wondering why it has to be completely one side or the other?
Was the 38 an uber plane? Nope. Was it a capable fighter. Yes. If not, I doubt they'd have kept it in operations in Europe and the Pacific until the end.
I quoted the 370th 38 driver for a reason. It seemed to show that sometimes the pilot made the difference. Could be he was just lucky.
I have a hard time believing he made it up just to lie when he was debriefed for the combat report.
Thought I was clear on the Lowell Galland bit. Based on the entry of the D9 into service, and the exit of the 38 from the 364th, there isn't anyway for it to have taken place with Galland in a D9.
That being said, there were certainly reports by allied pilots of "Long nose" 190s prior to the actual entry of the D9 into combat.
As examples, the 56th FG in their jugs claimed D9s on June 8th of 44. On June 20th of 44, the 370th in thier P38s thought they'd found D9s as well. I know I've seen RAF claims of seeing them prior to D-Day.
Could it be that the word was out about the possibility of the D9 being about and the pilots saw what they anticipated seeing? Sure. Mistaken identity was nothing new in combat. Did they lie delibrately? I don't believe that for a minute. Why would they?
It does bother me, that the tone of some of the posts come across almost arrogant in the tone towards pilots of both sides.
To my understanding, none of us have ever been in a WW2 combat situation. To pass judgement on those guys is nothing less then disrespectful.
Regarding Lowell and the Spit driver. I think that one's been covered. I don't doubt that it happened. Too many people witnessed it. Spit XIV with an RAF senior pilot who'd been off ops for a time vs a current front line 38 pilot, most likely in one of the first J-25s since the Ls didn't get there until the fall of 44.
But you know, we always end up in the same place in these debates and they are pointless.
I'm outa here for 10 days anyway. Off to England for the Flying Legends airshow and then France for a few days to visit Normandy etc.
I hope the rest of you have a good week.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Widewing
For the American view of those dates, go here. (http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/)
This is the official USAAF WWII Combat Chronology by Carter & Mueller hosted on the Rutgers University server. You can download the entire document in plain text or html formats.
You will find some disagreements with what you have posted.
My regards,
Widewing
Yes, but you don't understand. Regardless of what you post, Wotan's sources agree with his fantasy world, so they are factual and better than yours, regardless of the validity of your sources.
I can post all sorts of reports showing combat that was decidedly lopsided in favor of the P-38 units, but nothing will come of it, just like nothing will come of what you posted.
American pilots are liars. At least according to Wotan. American records are completely false and invalid. At least according to Wotan. Even German pilots are not to be believed when they praise the P-38 in any way. At least according to Wotan. The world according to Wotan is a strange place indeed.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Always amazing where these conversations end up.
I keep wondering why it has to be completely one side or the other?
Was the 38 an uber plane? Nope. Was it a capable fighter. Yes. If not, I doubt they'd have kept it in operations in Europe and the Pacific until the end.
I quoted the 370th 38 driver for a reason. It seemed to show that sometimes the pilot made the difference. Could be he was just lucky.
I have a hard time believing he made it up just to lie when he was debriefed for the combat report.
Thought I was clear on the Lowell Galland bit. Based on the entry of the D9 into service, and the exit of the 38 from the 364th, there isn't anyway for it to have taken place with Galland in a D9.
That being said, there were certainly reports by allied pilots of "Long nose" 190s prior to the actual entry of the D9 into combat.
As examples, the 56th FG in their jugs claimed D9s on June 8th of 44. On June 20th of 44, the 370th in thier P38s thought they'd found D9s as well. I know I've seen RAF claims of seeing them prior to D-Day.
Could it be that the word was out about the possibility of the D9 being about and the pilots saw what they anticipated seeing? Sure. Mistaken identity was nothing new in combat. Did they lie delibrately? I don't believe that for a minute. Why would they?
It does bother me, that the tone of some of the posts come across almost arrogant in the tone towards pilots of both sides.
To my understanding, none of us have ever been in a WW2 combat situation. To pass judgement on those guys is nothing less then disrespectful.
Regarding Lowell and the Spit driver. I think that one's been covered. I don't doubt that it happened. Too many people witnessed it. Spit XIV with an RAF senior pilot who'd been off ops for a time vs a current front line 38 pilot, most likely in one of the first J-25s since the Ls didn't get there until the fall of 44.
But you know, we always end up in the same place in these debates and they are pointless.
I'm outa here for 10 days anyway. Off to England for the Flying Legends airshow and then France for a few days to visit Normandy etc.
I hope the rest of you have a good week.
Dan/CorkyJr
You expect too much from certain individuals. Some people are convinced that the best way to glorify their heroes is to disparage their opponents as much as possible. It is simply the best that they can offer.
In any event, have a safe trip, and enjoy the show and the scenery.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The long ranged twin engined escort fighter proved to be a failure on all sides. If it was such a resounding success why develop anything else?
Widewing is definitely a fan of the P-38 (and everything else American). I am sure that is what you picked up on when you read the link Guppy provided.
Well, let's see... The P-82B was developed as a twin-engine escort fighter during the war. It was quite successful in Korea and would have been just as successful in WWII. Its max speed of 482 mph was faster than any axis prop fighter. Its wing loading was 8% less than the P-51D when both are at full internal load, a weight condition never seen in combat.
Another extremely capable twin-engine fighter was the F7F Tigercat. Have you read the reviews of the F7F from the Joint Fighter Conference? They thought it to be vastly superior to the P-38L they also tested.
Both of these fighters were developed to include the lessons learned in 1943-44. So yes, they DID develop additional twin-engine fighters.
Am I a fan of the P-38? You betcha. Was it without faults? Hell no. Was it better than the P-51 or P-47? In some repects, yes. In others, no. Was it the American's best fighter? No. There were better fighters in service by war's end, even by 1944.
Despite the ups and downs of the type, it was the best available for long range work when introduced to combat. The P-38F employed in North Africa lacked maneuver flaps. These arrived with the G model. So, it was unable to turn with the 109s until the Gs arrived in later winter of '43. But it always had great range and more than enough speed.
Oh, and have you read Steinhoff's Messerschmitts Over Sicily? If not, please try to locate a copy. He presents a very balanced opinion of the P-38, comparing strengths to weaknesses.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Wotan
That may very well be but what does it have to do with Lowell's claim that he fought Galland while Galland was in a D-9?
You claim to have 'heard from both sides'? Both sides of what? The incident Lowell describes? If so please provide a link or source as to where you read Galland's side of this story.
If your reply to the questioning of Lowell's claim is that Galland is an opportunist then so what, that does nothing to validate Lowell.
If the P-38 has a record of 4 to 1 (I even read claims of 6 to 1) verses the LW then it shouldn't be that hard for the Cap'n to prove it.
If folks can't make an effort to back up what they claim then yes this thread is dead.
Pull yourself together there bud, I haven't even mentioned Lowell or Galland.
You have confused posts and posters. No sense in getting that worked up.
My regards,
Widewing
-
American pilots are liars. At least according to Wotan. American records are completely false and invalid. At least according to Wotan. Even German pilots are not to be believed when they praise the P-38 in any way. At least according to Wotan. The world according to Wotan is a strange place indeed.
That's not what I hear Wotan saying. This, is what he said;
"Over claiming aside this thread is about the outrageous claims made by Lowell. "
At least, at this point, there is no doubting that Lowell cannot be trusted, is there?
You expect too much from certain individuals. Some people are convinced that the best way to glorify their heroes is to disparage their opponents as much as possible. It is simply the best that they can offer.
Actually, I asked a simple question for info on where Galland exactly lied as much as Lowell, since you seem to know so much about what Galland remarked.
Except the only info I ever got, at least according to whatever relevant info posted on this thread, was that Galland mentioned the P-38 in two sentences. Only Guppy and Tim was kind enough to actually bring up some relevant material.
So just what exactly did we 'disparage'?
The fact that Wotan mentioned the P-38 was basically considered an inefficient solution when compared to other USAAF fighters?
Or the fact that I was curious about Galland was an exaggerated, overbloated source as Lowell, mentioning fights that did not occur and planes that did not exist?
-
I don't wanna step on any toes here, but I remember someone posting a more detailed account of the "fight" between Lowell and a long nose 190 a few years back. It deteriorated into the same type argument we are seeing right now.
IIRC, the story was told at a reunion, one which several former fighter pilots from both sides were attending, and as Lowell described the fight, giving detail of the layout of the land, etc....Galland was supposed to have "turned pale" and said "You SOB, you almost killed me that day!".
After reading many posts here saying that the fight could not have happened due to: a)the Dora was not even in service at the time; b)"Galland never even flew a Dora"; c) "Galland did not even fly that day....I looked it up and he was doing something else that day"............I concluded, to myself, that maybe Lowell had his dates wrong, or the ID'd he enemy aircraft incorrectly, or his memory was just fuzzy.....but Galland corroborating his story in the midst of other veterans, right out in the open, groups him right there with Lowell.
Lowell appears to have been a proud, boastful man, as was Galland. They appear to be twins, ready to tell a good story, proud of their accomplishments, able to tell a good tale. Do I believe they might have both played up the stories, told "fisherman's tales"? YES
Anyone who claims to be unbiased would have to see the similiarities in the men, and realize that neither was more or less reliable for good accurate information than the other.
If you want to throw Lowell's accounts out the window as rubbish, at least be fair and admit that the same can be said about Galland. One flew for the Allies, one for the Luftwaffe, but each tended to stretch the truth a bit.
-
You have confused posts and posters. No sense in getting that worked up.
My regards,
Widewing
It's not that hard really. Since I quoted each person I reply to it shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out where a reply to you ends and another picks up.
So when you got to this quote:
I think with Galland's habit of also over stating things and painting things to make himself look better, then yes, what he said can also be taken with a grain of salt.
and realized it's not something you wrote that should have been a clue that my following replies weren't directed to you.
Anyway your reference to the the P-83 / F-83 is irrelevant given the numbers in service. Less then 300 total and more then half were night fighters.
The F7F under 400 built, less then 100 after the war most as night fighters? Are these your examples of long range twin engined escort fighters?
Oh, and have you read Steinhoff's Messerschmitts Over Sicily? If not, please try to locate a copy. He presents a very balanced opinion of the P-38, comparing strengths to weaknesses.
Of course I have Steinhoff's book. I brought up Steinhoff very early in this thread because most P-38 lovers point to him as clear evidence of how good the P-38 was.
What I said all along the P-38 was nothing special. Certainly at double the cost of the P-51 it wasn't twice the plane the P-51 was. Not even close.
But lets get back on topic. My first post was in reply to the fact that Lowell never fought Galland in a D-9.
The response from the P-38 lovers has been (and I'll quote them so don't get confused):
AKAK:
As for the Galland vs. Lowell...well, I've heard both sides and frankly, Galland's word isn't any better than Lowell's.
and then the Cap'n:
If you are going to castigate Lowell for "embellishment", then Galland has to be right up there with him.
and (among others)
Galland is well known as a Luftwaffe apologist and a self promoter prone to embillishment at best, and not known for telling the truth unless forced to.
All that my very well be true but it has nothing to with Lowell's claims. The only person who has addressed Lowell's claim about fighting Galland while Galland was in a D-9 is Guppy.
Neither of them will say what Galland lied about in reference to this incident.
I have said I am no admirer of Galland but they (AKAK and the Cap'n) go out of there way to turn the issue around so we end up discussing Galland or some other topic unrelated to the original post.
American pilots are liars. At least according to Wotan. American records are completely false and invalid. At least according to Wotan. Even German pilots are not to be believed when they praise the P-38 in any way. At least according to Wotan. The world according to Wotan is a strange place indeed.
Aren't you the guy who was all upset about baseless accusations?
True to form Cap'n...
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Anyway your reference to the the P-83 / F-83 is irrelevant given the numbers in service. Less then 300 total and more then half were night fighters.
The F7F under 400 built, less then 100 after the war most as night fighters? Are these your examples of long range twin engined escort fighters?
Of course I have Steinhoff's book. I brought up Steinhoff very early in this thread because most P-38 lovers point to him as clear evidence of how good the P-38 was.
What I said all along the P-38 was nothing special. Certainly at double the cost of the P-51 it wasn't twice the plane the P-51 was. Not even close.
But lets get back on topic. My first post was in reply to the fact that Lowell never fought Galland in a D-9.
500 P-82Bs were being manufactured at the time Japan surrendered. Likewise, 500 F7F-1 fighters were in various stages of manufacture.
Those P-82s were specifically designed for escort of B-29s.
As to the P-38; it was an excellent fighter at medium altitudes, right on down to the deck. It was also a first rate attack aircraft. However, by 1945 it was past its prime and technology was quickly passing it by. Nontheless, it was still a first string fighter in the Pacific and able to defeat anything it would encounter.
Yet in terms of cost effectiveness, the P-38 was very expensive to build and operate. That, probably more than any other factor was what pushed it to the side. Moreover, Lockheed was unwilling to spend addition time and treasure on updating the design as their money was completely invested in the P-80. Likewise, Republic dropped the very capable XP-72 due to the P-84 offering vastly greater performance. All of the late-war piston powered fighters faced a major change of mission with the rapid development of jet aircraft, with older designs being sacked first (P-40 and P-38).
As to Galland and Lowell, I personally would have serious reservations with either gentlemen as far as their "war stories" went. When their facts disagree with reality... Well, then their facts are not facts at all.
People without anything to prove are always more reliable.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
As to the P-38; it was an excellent fighter at medium altitudes, right on down to the deck. It was also a first rate attack aircraft. However, by 1945 it was past its prime and technology was quickly passing it by. Nontheless, it was still a first string fighter in the Pacific and able to defeat anything it would encounter.
Yet in terms of cost effectiveness, the P-38 was very expensive to build and operate. That, probably more than any other factor was what pushed it to the side. Moreover, Lockheed was unwilling to spend addition time and treasure on updating the design as their money was completely invested in the P-80. Likewise, Republic dropped the very capable XP-72 due to the P-84 offering vastly greater performance. All of the late-war piston powered fighters faced a major change of mission with the rapid development of jet aircraft, with older designs being sacked first (P-40 and P-38).
My regards,
Widewing
One can add to all of that the fact that the USAAF and the War Production Board steadfastly refused nearly every improvement Lockheed developed for the P-38 after the P-38K test mule was built and tested. Other than MINOR detail improvements, NOTHING added to the P-38 from late 1943 on had not already been developed by early 1943. It never got the engines or propellors proposed for the P-38K. And of course, they also declined to allow Lockheed to install the improved and simplified control system.
Most everything found on the 1944 and later P-38 was developed in early to mid 1943, and therefore development and improvement of the P-38 ceased at that point. It was not so much that Lockheed was unwilling or unable to carry it further, but rather that what they did was never put to good use. Even the P-38L was a 1943 development that entered service late because Lockheed was wasting valuable production on building B-17's when Consolidated Vultee would have been a far better choice for the task. All the fighters everyone compares to the P-38 saw extensive improvements developed AFTER 1943.
IF one contends that the P-38 suffered because of a poor power to weight ratio, making it sluggish, then the P-38K solved all of that, and with a four or five blade prop rather than the three blade, it would have only gotten better.
Had the basic design premise of the P-38 been a dead end, then the P-82 would never have been built at all. But for the most part, the performance of the P-38K was on par with that of the P-82, which entered service nearly 3 YEARS after the P-38K was rejected out of hand.
Certainly the P-38K is a "what if" plane, as it never saw production. However, it is a clear demonstration that the P-38 had far more potential than was extracted from it. And going by the logical progression of the development process for the P-38, the P-38K SHOULD have entered service BEFORE the J or the L models. The J and L should have been detail improvements on the K. While the P-38K was never produced, it is by no means a fantasy, nor a figment of anyone's imagination. The plane existed, and its performance was verified.
I've never contended that the P-38 was even close to an all conquering wonder plane, merely that it was a successful and versatile plane and easily able to compete with any of the contemporary competitors, as opposed to being a second or third rate fighter as some attempt to portray it. The P-38 was not outclassed by anything on either side with pistons and props.
And by 1945, for use as a FIGHTER, everything with pistons and props was quickly passed by and rendered obsolete.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
One can add to all of that the fact that the USAAF and the War Production Board steadfastly refused nearly every improvement Lockheed developed for the P-38 after the P-38K test mule was built and tested. Other than MINOR detail improvements, NOTHING added to the P-38 from late 1943 on had not already been developed by early 1943. It never got the engines or propellors proposed for the P-38K. And of course, they also declined to allow Lockheed to install the improved and simplified control system.
Most everything found on the 1944 and later P-38 was developed in early to mid 1943, and therefore development and improvement of the P-38 ceased at that point. It was not so much that Lockheed was unwilling or unable to carry it further, but rather that what they did was never put to good use. Even the P-38L was a 1943 development that entered service late because Lockheed was wasting valuable production on building B-17's when Consolidated Vultee would have been a far better choice for the task. All the fighters everyone compares to the P-38 saw extensive improvements developed AFTER 1943.
IF one contends that the P-38 suffered because of a poor power to weight ratio, making it sluggish, then the P-38K solved all of that, and with a four or five blade prop rather than the three blade, it would have only gotten better.
Had the basic design premise of the P-38 been a dead end, then the P-82 would never have been built at all. But for the most part, the performance of the P-38K was on par with that of the P-82, which entered service nearly 3 YEARS after the P-38K was rejected out of hand.
Certainly the P-38K is a "what if" plane, as it never saw production. However, it is a clear demonstration that the P-38 had far more potential than was extracted from it. And going by the logical progression of the development process for the P-38, the P-38K SHOULD have entered service BEFORE the J or the L models. The J and L should have been detail improvements on the K. While the P-38K was never produced, it is by no means a fantasy, nor a figment of anyone's imagination. The plane existed, and its performance was verified.
I've never contended that the P-38 was even close to an all conquering wonder plane, merely that it was a successful and versatile plane and easily able to compete with any of the contemporary competitors, as opposed to being a second or third rate fighter as some attempt to portray it. The P-38 was not outclassed by anything on either side with pistons and props.
And by 1945, for use as a FIGHTER, everything with pistons and props was quickly passed by and rendered obsolete.
Test data from the XP-38K and the previously modified P-38E certainly established that the high activity props made substantial improvements in climb and acceleration. Likewise, a notable speed increase was recorded.
However, the problem that still dogged the P-38 was its wing design. Improved power and efficency did not increase its critical Mach speed. With more power and better props the XP-38K found itself up against its critical Mach in level flight at its critical altitude. Therefore, while these changes, had they been implemented, would have made the P-38 an even more capable fighter at low to medium altitudes, it still would have suffered from compressibility issues at high altitudes.
It should have been adopted, there was no valid reason not to.
My regards,
Widewing
-
But was the wing design the sole culprit for the low CMN? IIRC the Typhoon has approx. similar wing thickness yet it has much higher CMN (according the Eric Brown´s Testing for Combat the true CMN was 0.81, i.e. very close to that of the Mustang).
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
But was the wing design the sole culprit for the low CMN? IIRC the Typhoon has approx. similar wing thickness yet it has much higher CMN (according the Eric Brown´s Testing for Combat the true CMN was 0.81, i.e. very close to that of the Mustang).
Yes, it was mostly a factor of the wing design. There were other issues that made it worse.
Great care had to be taken with the fit of everything around the windows and the rest of the center nacelle.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Yes, it was mostly a factor of the wing design. There were other issues that made it worse.
Great care had to be taken with the fit of everything around the windows and the rest of the center nacelle.
I was interrupted, so I'll quote what I started.
As stated above, the fit in finish in that area was CRITICAL, even the adjustment on the roll up windows and how they fit and sealed could make a huge difference.
There was likely more that could have been done to deal with the compression issues the P-38 had. Early on, they reworked the fillet radius between the inner wing and the center nacelle, and were rewarded with dramatic improvements. Kelly Johnson wanted desperately to work on the problem, but was not allowed to use the wind tunnel that belonged to NACA (the forerunner of NASA), and was forced to do all of his testing at altitude and speed, risking the lives of test pilots and the planes. At least one test pilot was killed during compression dive testing, and the plane was destroyed as well. Without wind tunnel data, they could not SEE what was happening, and had to rely on pilot "feel" and trial and error guesswork.
There is NO QUESTION that compression was a serious issue, it was the single biggest problem that faced the P-38, and even with wind tunnel testing would not have been easily dealt with. However, there is little doubt they could have done MUCH more than they did, given wind tunnel time and a free hand.
Yes, the P-38K could have come close to reaching compression in level flight at critical altitude. HOWEVER, rarely was any fighting done at top speed flying level at that altitude. Remember, no one cruised at 100% throttle like we do in AH, so rarely did anyone even enter combat at the maximum level speed. The only time combat was initiated at top speed was when one opponent was able to dive on another. It takes quite a while to accelerate from the average cruise speed of 260-300 MPH up to speeds in excess of 440 MPH unless you dive.
Taken a step further, even if you DID enter combat at 450MPH, after the first turn you'd lose considerable speed. This is EASILY demonstrated.
Take ANY fighter in AH, and accelerate to its maximum level speed at ANY altitude, and then execute any sort of break turn or other merge move you'd make, and then look at your speed at the end of that maneuver. Unless you dive, it will not even be equal to the speed you had when you merged, never mind faster. Execute a 2-3G merge maneuver level or climbing, and see how much speed you LOSE.
At this point, power to weight ratio (the P-38J and L were pretty decent in that department already) and prop efficiency are CRITICAL to maintaining speed and E, or at least limiting the loss of speed and E. The P-38 Curtiss Electric prop, supplied by the USAAF, just plain SUCKED. It was terribly inefficient, unreliable, and was a huge load on the electrical system. One of the guys here in AH, Earl "Dutch" Miller, flew the P-38, P-39, and P-47 in World War II. He said the Curtiss Electric prop was the biggest piece of crap he ever saw. Given the choice, he avoided planes that had one at all costs.
At this point, it should be noted that the USAAF/USAAC and the War Production Board specified and/or supplied the parts a manufacturer used to build aircraft. Even if the engineers stated it was a poor or even dangerous choice, the manufacturer did NOT have any say.
The P-38K had OVER 400 more horsepower available than the P-38J, and over 200 more than the P-38L, (and we DO NOT get the 200 HP gain from the J to the L in AH). But the P-38K also had a 20% more efficient prop. If you'll look at the difference between a paddle prop (Hamilton Standard High Activity Paddle Prop) P-47, and a P-47 with the Curtiss Electric prop like the P-38, you'll see a DRAMATIC increase in performance including a huge increase in climb rate. There is no reason to expect that the P-38 would have gained ANY less than the P-47 did with the prop change. The gain would have been huge, even without the added power.
Even if NOTHING else had been done to cure the compression problem, the drawback for the P-38 would have been a top speed limit of 450-460MPH, give or take 5-10MPH. The rest of the gains in acceleration, climb rate, speed and E retention, and sustained turn rate would have been more than enough to compensate.
-
My understanding is the USAAF had decided to go with the P-51 Mustang as its premier escort type, and thats why the P-38s were gradually phased out. The remaining P-38Js and P-38Ls in the IXth Tac AF were employed in various roles untill the end of the ETO campaign.
By the summer of 1945 the war with Germany was over, and they were looking for a long range escort for B-29 groups, and were still envisioning the P-47 as the USAAFs main ground attack fighter in case of an invasion of Japan, and P-51s as escort/air superiority fighter.
Strategic interests often decided the fate of certian a/c types, either by deployment or a change in strategic fortunes on all sides in the war.
My point being that ordering a P-38K varient would seem redundant given those facts, despite its promise as a type.
-
Captain, the P-38L in AH should have 200 more HP than the P-38J does?
I thought we had a late model P-38J that was for all intents and purposes identical to the L.
Explain, please. Thanks in advance.
-
We have an early model J without the dive flaps and boosted ailerons.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Captain, the P-38L in AH should have 200 more HP than the P-38J does?
I thought we had a late model P-38J that was for all intents and purposes identical to the L.
Explain, please. Thanks in advance.
Okay. This is a subject of great debate. Let me first post a data chart, it's the chart Warren Bodie gave me as well as Widewing. It is taken directly from the Lockheed and Allison tests on the -30 Allison engines installed in the P-38L.
Ratings [minutes] Power RPM Manifold [in.Hg] Altitude [ft]
Normal(no limit) 1,100 2,600 44 30,000
Take Off (5) 1,475 3,000 54 SL
Military (15) 1,475 3,000 54 30,000
WEP (5) 1,725 3,000 60 28,700
Now, the USAAF did not release these specs, choosing instead to retain the earlier specs for the J model. However, Lockheed reps went into the field and showed the pilots and crews the true settings. Not all pilots and crews knew about it.
Captain Art Heiden regularly refers to the P-38L as having significantly more power than the P-38J, and the ONLY explanation I can find for this would be the use of the real settings by Art and his crew.
Now, Warren Bodie was a Lockheed engineer for 30 years or so, and worked in the legendary Skunk Works with Kelly Johnson and crew. Here is the Lockheed test data for the P-38L, Warren provided from the Lockheed test logs.
(from Lockheed factory test logbooks):
Max speed at sea level: 352 mph
Max speed at 5,500 ft : 369 mph
Max speed at 23,500 ft. 440 mph (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Max speed at critical alt: 444 mph @ 25,800 (WEP) 5 minutes max.
Now, in this passage we have an explanation of the factual data for the P-38L compared to the P-38J, as found in the Lockheed test logs, again according to Bodie. I'm going to use a quote from Widewing that I have saved, because it is easy to access and paste here, but it is verified DIRECTLY by Warren Bodie himself, I have seen the actual copies of the log books.
The most commonly printed max speed numbers for the P-38L state 414 mph. How interesting. Consider that the L was fitted with the -30 Allisons, as opposed to the -17 on the J. There is a big difference, and I'll go into that a little later. The typical numbers presented for the J are 421 mph IN WEP. The typical numbers presented for the L are 414 mph IN METO. This is one of the pitfalls of using commercially available data. It usually isn't researched very well. The difference between METO and WEP is 600 hp. The -30 produced a minimum of 1,725 hp in WEP. As opposed to 1,425 hp in METO. The -17 installed in the P-38J had the same METO rating as the -30 at 1,425 hp. However, the -17 only made 1,600 hp in WEP. The additional power could push the L to speeds over 440 mph. Warren Bodie concludes the maximum speed in WEP as 443 mph at altitudes between 20,000 and 23,500 ft. Bodie obtained his data directly from Lockheed, where he was employed as an engineer on the U-2 and F-117 programs. Therefore, I tend to except Bodie as a more credible source than Green and Swanborough et al.
Again, note I specifically state this is pasted from a post by Widewing, but that I verified with Bodie, I did see the logs.
Now, the reason HTC did not model the P-38L with the more powerful engines and the faster speeds is that the USAAF/USAAC never accepted the ratings, at least officially, this we ALL agree on. The settings WERE used by combat units, there is NO DOUBT of this. But without official acceptance, there are too many arguements against it, so HTC did not model it.
Recently, Pyro clearly stated in a post on the boards when the recently added P-38's were being coded, that he had verified reports that the 8th AF was actually allowing P-38's to be run at higher than accepted power settings. He did not elaborate. However, everyone agreed it was probably best not to model them that way.
Now regarding "our" P-38J. It is either a P-38J-5-Lo, a P-38J-10-Lo, or a P-38J-15-Lo. All of those models were originally shipped WITHOUT the boosted ailerons and the electric dive FLAPS. Some were retrofitted later in the field. But most of the parts for retrofits were lost when a Spitfire shot down a U.S. cargo plane and the plane crashed into the sea (at least that is the report).
When the "new" P-38's were being coded, we actually campaigned to have an earlier J model, rather than the P-38J-25-Lo, because it would be completely redundant.
So, AKAK is correct in his post.
Now, I personally would like to have had a P-38H-10-Lo as opposed to the P-38G, because it was the H that the 20th and 55th went operational with in late 1943. The J arrived in December 1943 in very small numbers, and the late J did not arrive until early 1944. The L arrived in mid 1944, just as the 8th was transitioning to the P-51D.
-
Originally posted by Squire
My understanding is the USAAF had decided to go with the P-51 Mustang as its premier escort type, and thats why the P-38s were gradually phased out. The remaining P-38Js and P-38Ls in the IXth Tac AF were employed in various roles untill the end of the ETO campaign.
By the summer of 1945 the war with Germany was over, and they were looking for a long range escort for B-29 groups, and were still envisioning the P-47 as the USAAFs main ground attack fighter in case of an invasion of Japan, and P-51s as escort/air superiority fighter.
Strategic interests often decided the fate of certian a/c types, either by deployment or a change in strategic fortunes on all sides in the war.
My point being that ordering a P-38K varient would seem redundant given those facts, despite its promise as a type.
The problem with that theory is that the P-38K was built and tested around March/April 1943. BEFORE the J or the L.
At that point, no decision had been made about replacing the P-38 with either the P-51 OR the P-47. In fact, at the time the P-38K was being tested, there were no operational P-51 groups in the 8th at all, and they had decided the P-47 was not acceptable as a long range escort (ANOTHER mistake on the part of the 8th AF).
The P-47 was only escorting the bombers to the German frontier, they were going it alone after that. AND at that time the P-47 was the ONLY fighter escort, and was doing as good a job as possible, considering that they could not go into Germany due to lack of range. The first P-38 group had not even gone operational with the 8th AF at that point, ALL of the P-38's originally intended for the escort duty with the 8th AF had been sent to the Med theatre or North Africa. Since the first of the P-38J's arrived in December 43/January 44, that is when they'd have had the P-38K with the improved performance.
Even in LATE 1943, LONG after the P-38K was rejected, the P-51 STILL had not been chosen to replace the P-38.
And again, remember that the K was developed and tested BEFORE the J and L. So they got the J and L, but not the K. If the K would have been redundant, then the J and L certainly would have.
-
I was thinking more along the lines of if say they had "revisited" the P-38K option as an ETO/PTO fighter. Perhaps they did, but by that time the P-51B/D was flagged as the premier US type.
-
Originally posted by Squire
I was thinking more along the lines of if say they had "revisited" the P-38K option as an ETO/PTO fighter. Perhaps they did, but by that time the P-51B/D was flagged as the premier US type.
To my knowledge, once the P-38K was rejected in early 1943, it was never reconsidered or resubmitted.
The MAIN reason the USAAF/USAAC and War Production Board gave for the rejection was that Lockheed asked for two weeks production shutdown in order to change the cowl and spinner area, because the new prop and gearbox required the centerline of the prop shaft to be raised. This request was denied, because P-38 production was deemed so critical that any interruption was too terrible a burden, evidently they felt they needed the P-38 that bad. The 5th AF and the 9th AF in particular constantly lobbied, begged, and pleaded for more P-38's, and would actually take even War Wearies from other Air Forces just to have the P-38 because it was what they wanted and needed.
The Lockheed plant that built the P-38 actually devoted more space and man power to the B-17 than to the P-38, considerably more. Consolidated Vultee in Nashville Tennessee was contracted to be the second source for the P-38, I have family that worked there. Unfortunately, Consolidated was actually a company devoted to bomber and transport aircraft, and did not possess ANY of the staff in production, engineering, or management that was experienced with and capable of dealing with the precision manufacturing process needed to produce the P-38. As a result, after at least two years of trying, they barely built 113 P-38's, where I seem to recall the contract called for around 2500 or so (possibly 3000-3500, I do not have the reference for that handy).
P-38 production was actually done outside the plant under camo nets for a long time, while the B-17 production occupied precious indoor production space.
Consolidated would have been a far better choice to build the B-17's Lockheed was tasked with producing, they would have done at least as well as Lockheed at building B-17's, and surely doubling plant capacity for P-38 production at Lockheed's plant would have resulted in a wealth of P-38's, and the ability to shut down only one line at a time, thereby not interrupting the only source for the precious P-38's that were so desperately needed.
Anyway, only the 8th AF actually stopped requesting P-38's, everyone else begged for them. The P-38 production was not reduced or phased out until the war ended, it ran wide open from the beginning of the war until after hostilities ceased.
On a side note, the USAAF/USAAC also wasted considerable Lockheed engineering resources on projects like the "Chain Lightning" and other bizarre versions of the P-38, and they (the USAAF/USAAC) continually screwed up those projects and changed the design specifications so that little real progress was ever made. The engineering time and resources would have been far better devoted to either the REAL P-38 program, or the P-80 program, both of which would likely have progressed far more rapidly with far better results.
-
Interesting information Captain, thanks. I've heard similar stories of the P-47 running at settings that weren't "offically" allowed without much trouble.
Probably be something cool to throw in TOD anyway. No idea how the bonuses will work, but maybe one of them will be a '1337' crew chief that can overboost your engines safely :).
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Interesting information Captain, thanks. I've heard similar stories of the P-47 running at settings that weren't "offically" allowed without much trouble.
Probably be something cool to throw in TOD anyway. No idea how the bonuses will work, but maybe one of them will be a '1337' crew chief that can overboost your engines safely :).
Yeah, Republic took a P-47 engine and ran it for about 24 hours at 80" of MAP. The P-47 was regularly run well above the factory boost ratings. That's a little different than the -30 Allisons in the P-38, those being run BELOW the FACTORY ratings.
The -30 Allisons in the P-38L were about the only engines that were not accepted to run at the factory ratings for both the plane and the engine, from both manufacturers.
-
Interesting.
It appears that the BMW801D was also overboosted by some pilots.
I have a report from BMW investigating the practice of overriding the Kommandgerät limiter and increasing the manifold pressure in 1944. The report concludes that the practice should cease immediately as it is dangerous to both the aircraft and the pilot.
Several months later the boost pressure was officially raised by BMW.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there was a lot of overboosting going on just about everywhere. Mechanics will always be mechanics, and about 90% of the GOOD ones are dyed in the wool hot rodders. Any good hot rodder will push the engine as hard as he thinks he can get away with.
Since there's no way to model how soon an engine will fail when it is pushed past the factory limit, and HTC made a decision (and probably a wise one) not to model random engine failures (or even deal with quality control issues known to exist at certain times in certain planes) there's no way to deal with boosting an engine past the factory limits.
Much as I'd LIKE to see the P-38L get the properly modeled -30 Allisons at their correct factory rated output, I understand the position of HTC, even though I know that the higher rating was approved by GM/Allison and Lockheed, and I know pilots who used it.
-
Over the years I have read quite a bit of P-38 vs the Luftwaffe and how the P-38 was not up to the task. To back up these claims the performance of the P-38 in the long range escort role during service in the 8th airforce is frequently used. It is frequently stated how well 8th airforce units did once they switched to the P-51. Nobody will ever know how well the P-38 would have done had the P-51 never showed up. It is not a fair compairson to compair 2 P-38 fighter groups performance during late 1943 to early 1944 when there were very few long range escorts. The P-38 units were greatly out numbered and the escort tactics that the 8th airforce were not as effective as they could have been. I think the only way to truely judge how the P-38 performed vs the P-51 is to look at how the 4 fighter groups that used P-38s performed the month prior to recieving P-51s the month they operated both P-38s and P-51s and the month after P-38 ceased operations. The reason for this is simple. during the 3 month period the fighter units faced similar opposition and the americans had a similar number of fighters on hand.
the data I have compiled represents how the 20th fighter group, 55th fighter group, 364th fighter group, and 479th fighter group of the 8th airforce performed during a specific time frame.
The 20th, 55th, and 364th fighter groups operated the P-38 during the month of June 1944, a mixed group of P-38s and P-51s during the month of July 1944, and the P-51 during the month of August 1944. The 479th fighter group operated P-38s during august 1944, a mixed group of P-38s and P-51s during September 1944, and the P-51 during October 1944.
during the above mentioned time the 4 fighter groups claimed the below mentioned figures. Figures which were revised from the original war time claims by a study done well after the war ended. many claims were disallowed, confirmed, or left stand after a close examanation of german and american records.
P-38 destroyed 214, probably destroyed 6, damaged 102, 60 P-38s were lost to all causes.
P-51 destroyed 91, probably destroyed 1, damaged 23, 68 P-51s were lost to all causes.
air to air only
P-38 destroyed 112, probably destroyed 6, damaged 35, 10 P-38s were lost to enemy aircraft.
P-51 destroyed 91, probably destroyed 1, damaged 23, 3 P-51s were lost to enemy fighters.
*Note the 55th fighter group lost 8 of the 10 P-38s lost to enemy aircraft.
I also found it interested that mechanical failure is always mentioned for P-38 losses in many books. during this period of time more P-51s were lost due to mechanical failure than P-38s.
P-38s lost due to mechanical failure - 5
P-51s lost due to mechanical failure - 13
Hub Zemke is often quoted in forums as staying that one the P-51s replaced the P-38s the 479th did much better. He is also quoted in many forums as stating P-38s had a very high abort rate and mechanical failure was the cause. Lets take a look at Hub Zemke's time spent with the 479th. Zemke arrived about a month before the 479th began their transition into the P-51. August 12th 1944 I believe. On September 12th 1944 the 479th began their first missions with P-51s and they flew a mixed bag of P-38s and P-51s until October 2nd 1944. Zemke was lost during October 1944. I do not understand how Zemke came to his conclusions in light of the 479th statistical record for this time period, or his is often misquoted in forums.
P-38 August 12th 1944 thru September 11th 1944: 1,143 sorties 114 aborts, abort rate .10%
P-38 September 12th 1944 thru October 3rd 1944: 355 sorties 26 aborts, abort rate .07%
P-51 September 12th 1944 thru October 3rd 1944: 262 sorties 30 aborts, abort rate .11%
P-51 October 5th 1944 thru November 5th 1944: 780 sorties 67 aborts, abort rate .09%
total for both aircraft during this period
P-38 1,508 sorties 140 aborts, abort rate .09%
P-51 1042 sorties 107 aborts, abort rate .10%
479th scoring for the above mentioned time.
P-38 destroyed 150, probably destroyed 1, damaged 78, 16 P-38s lost to all causes
P-51 destroyed 14, probably destroyed 0, damaged 3, 12 P-51s lost to all causes.
air to air only
P-38 destroyed 49, probably destroyed 1, damaged 14, 1 P-38 lost to enemy aircraft
air to ground only
the P-38 destroyed 101 and damaged 64
P-51 destroyed 14, probably destroyed 0, damaged 3, no P-51s lost to enemy aircraft.
air to ground only
the P-51 had no claims for this period
the 16 P-38s the 479th lost during this period:
1 to enemy aircraft
11 to enemy flak
2 crashed/accidents
1 due to mechanical failure
1 no explanation other than KIA
the 12 P-51s the 479th lost during this period:
0 to enemy aircraft
2 to flak
4 crashed/accidents
3 due to mechanical failure
3 no explanation other than KIA
I am not certain why the MTO is frequently over looked. in the MTO the P-38 performed high altitude fighter escort for heavy bombers to targets including germany itself as well as nearly ever country germany occupied during the war. Just as in the 8th and 9th airforce the P-38s were greatly out numberd by P-51 and P-47 units.
air to air claims
1,431 - P-38
1,063 - P-51
203 - P-47
look at how the 15th airforce (MTO P-38 unit) performed against the germans.
44,296 sorties
3,814 early returns due to all causes
.086 abort rate due to all causes
608 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air
131 lightings were lost (not sure if it was to all causes)
the 15th airforce compairs favorably to P-51 and P-47 units in the ETO. the 12th fighter group (P-38 unit) also did fairly well.
-
Very interesting bolillo, nice read.
As you noted, Zemke was only in the Raiders for a short time and his motivating factor to take the CO spot of the 479th was so he could fly the P-51. A couple of the 479th pilots that some of my squadron mates have been talking to have stated numerous times they were not happy to have their P-38s taken from them.
ack-ack
479th FG
-
I think one of the hardest things to try and do with stats is compare one fighter or ace vs another in WW2. There are many reasons, the foremost is that the fortunes of both sides could change dramatically in the space of a few months, or years.
Look at the ETO. The 8th AF fortunes went from a low point in the Schweinfurt raids in August 1943 to a high point in the spring of 1944. Thats @9 months. In that time you have P-38 groups re-entering the bomber escort role after the N. African campaign interlude, and you have the first P-51Bs entering service. P-47 groups continue to fly escort missions as well. The # of USAAF grps are also getting larger as that time moves on. Every air combat mission is different, the fortunes of one group is not the same as another. In addition many of the missions the FGs flew were a combined effort, with mixed types. There are so many variables to look at.
I draw that one example as an illustration, but the same can be applied to almost every theater in WW2. A lot can change in 9 short months, good and bad.
For all the debates about the BoB, I have seen so many posters act like the Spitfire, Hurricane and 109 and 110 all flew in a vacuum where all they did was duel each other 1 vs 1. Regardless of your opinion, you cannot divorce the types debated with the missions they flew, or pretend that they alone were responsible for their fate. Fighters did not fly in the BoB all by themselves, nor did they face just one opposing type, or unit.
Brewster Buffalo. Do you judge it on how it did in the Dutch East Indies in 1942, or in the Finnish-Russian War? "Well that all depends"..., yup.
Im not saying you cant take a hard look and try to draw some conclusions, but its hard to do just from comparing raw stats.
-
Buhligen said the 38 was easy to burn, ( he got 13 of em ). Steinhoff's remarks are already mentioned. As for Galland, perhaps true he never flew one & never engaged one. but it was his job to know enemy planes. He may well have gotten his opinion from his pilots, which by & large would have been based on experience with the earlier models, ( my speculation ). & perhaps also on the green pilots 1st encountered in med.
This all changed with upgraded J models, as well as pilots gaining valuable experience, learning to master the 38 etc. Norways ace of aces said;I figure it took a guy about 6 months to get the nick of it.
Unfortunately we cannot interview Galland, so are left with best guess speculation.