Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: jokeri on November 03, 2005, 09:29:50 AM
-
I have encountered many times that people are nicknaming P38 as an "Lightning"? Is it true nickname to that plane? I have always understand the word "Lightning" comes from the P38L model marking so P38J or P38G isin't really "Lightning"? What is correct nickname for P38 if it's not "Lightning"?
!S
Jokeri
-
The P38 was originally called the 'Atlanta', but with the D and later models it was changed to the 'Lightning'. Later, the Germans called it the 'Forked Tailed Devil'...
-
Actually the Germans called it "Der Gabelschwanz Teufel". Which translates to The Forked Tail Devil.
;)
Magoo
-
Ok, thanks this clears the issue :D
-
Only the Germans gave different nicknames to each model of a plane. Most everyone else gave them one nickname early on and it stuck.
-
Names like "Lightning", "Mustang", "Thunderbolt", "Hurricane" and "Spitfire" are not really nicknames. They were official designations. Nicknames were things like "Spit", "'Stang", "Lanc", "Wimpy", "Hurri", "Jug", "Halibag", "Mossie", ect, ect.
-
Names like "Lightning", "Mustang", "Thunderbolt", "Hurricane" and "Spitfire" are not really nicknames. They were official designations. Nicknames were things like "Spit", "'Stang", "Lanc", "Wimpy", "Hurri", "Jug", "Halibag", "Mossie", ect, ect.
Ensign Eliminator - F4U
Spam Can - P51
Zippo - Sherman tank
-
Originally posted by Treize69
Only the Germans gave different nicknames to each model of a plane. Most everyone else gave them one nickname early on and it stuck.
When one uses Anton, Dora, Emil, Kurfurst to descibe a German a/c, one is using the phonetic word used for the model designation.
ie. Fw190A is an Anton model of the Fw.
The Americans and Brits would have used Able, Dog, Echo, Kilo.
ie. P-51D is a Dog model of the P-51.
http://morsecode.scphillips.com//alphabet.html
-
Originally posted by Magoo
Actually the Germans called it "Der Gabelschwanz Teufel". Which translates to The Forked Tail Devil.
They didn't, though.
That Germans called it so was the invention of American war journalists at Africa.
And even then the "Forked tail devil" was made up as something the German ground pounders called the P-38, when making the ground attack runs.
(The first P-38s were brought into Africa into ground attack jobs and its role as escort fighter in European theatre came only later)
-
They didn't, though.
Well how about that. It figures :aok
Back then the media was on the same side as the military (except that slapping the soldier thing Patton got busted for). If they did then what the media does now, people would be getting prosecuted for treason...
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping an honest eye on the government, but todays media has a major political agenda at the expense of soldier's lives.
Magoo
-
Back then it was about survival as a nation so everyone pulled eachothers chains to keep things runing smoth.
Nowa' days its about ubber corperations and $.
no one with power cares what the "soldier" go's thru in war or peace as long as the agendas are fullfilled and the pocket books keep packed with green money, blood money.
-
^
|
|
|
|
|
|
(http://www.itsonlyamovie.co.uk/cover%20scans/troll%202.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Grendel
(The first P-38s were brought into Africa into ground attack jobs and its role as escort fighter in European theatre came only later)
This is incorrect. While North African based P-38s did fly missions in support of ground forces, they were also flying escort missions as early as November of 1942.
My regards,
Widewing
-
That Germans called it so was the invention of American war journalists at Africa.
The P38 is listed by the Luftwaffe veterans in the book, "The Luftwaffe Fighter Force: A view from the Cockpit" as the USAAF fighter that was the easiest to shoot down. They did rate it as a good plane to fly over water due to the fact it had two engines.
The book is the reprint of the USAAF post war interrogations of dozens of prominent Luftwaffe pilots and leadership.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Grendel is reffering to the escort role in the 8th AF I think, which was the 55th FG starting ops in October 1943 in P-38Hs. The initial batch of P-38s were sent to N. Africa for "Torch", where it was recognised as the best USAAF fighter in theater, being much more suited to air combat than P-40s or P-39s, which were the only other two USAAF fighter types deployed there.
-
Originally posted by jokeri
I have encountered many times that people are nicknaming P38 as an "Lightning"? Is it true nickname to that plane? I have always understand the word "Lightning" comes from the P38L model marking so P38J or P38G isin't really "Lightning"? What is correct nickname for P38 if it's not "Lightning"?
!S
Jokeri
The original name given to the P-38 by the US was "Atlanta". Thankfully, the British renamed it the "Lightning" and it stuck. Kind of the same with the Mustang, though I think Apache would have been a cool name too.
ack-ack
-
My two favorites are taking N1K1 and calling it a NIKI...much easier to type in a hurry.....and KI-84=FRANK....WHO THE HELL IS FRANK? Do you think there has ever been a jap pilot, let alone a single Japanesse feller in history named Frank?
Hmm what else....c-47=Goon....
Bombers-Buffs...(b-17/24)
F4u=Hog
-
C-47 Skytrain was nicknamed "Gooney bird" not "Goon". Goon is a by-product of our flight sim world.
BUFF is in reference to the B-52 and is actually an acronym for Big Ugly Fat F***** and not in reference to bombers in general. Again, "Buff" as a general reference to bombers again is a creation of our little flight sim world.
The male names that was used for Japanese planes is an entirely U.S creation. A team of intelligence experts were tasked to "code name" the planes. Japanese fighters had male names while Japanese bombers had female names.
ack-ack
-
WW2 Allied code names for Japanese planes in AH:
A6M - Zeke, Zero, Hap/Hamp(A6M3 w/clipped wings)
D3A - Val
B5N - Kate
N1K2-J - George
Ki-61 - Tony
Ki-84 - Frank
Ki-67 - Peggy
Also:
C-47(Nakajima L2D) - Tabby
Bf 109 - Mike
Bf 110 - Doc
Fw 190 - Fred
Ju 87 - Irene
Ju 88 - Janice
-
F4u's factory nickname was the U-bird.
-
Art Buchwald, who was an F4U squadron 'erk' wrote the squadron newsletter The U-Man Comedy[/b].
'Buff' has been around since the 1st world war I think. I dont know how or why
-
See Rule #5
-
the sherman was not nicknamed the "zippo". but rather the ronson, after the lighter company whose slogan was "always lights up the first time". this was gallows humor on the part of the american tankers because the sherman was notorious for catching fire after only one hit.
it was nicknamed by the germans the "tommy cooker".
and furball, most of the american aces in WWII were P38 pilots and P47 pilots. so stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
and furball, most of the american aces in WWII were P38 pilots and P47 pilots. so stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.
i dont care and i dont smoke.
have a nice day. :aok
-
See Rule #7
-
Richard I. Bong, the first U.S. WWII ace to surpass Eddie Rickenbacker's WWI kills, and the U.S. WWII ace with the most kills altogether was a P-38 pilot.
The P-38 is a wonderful plane in AH2 for airfield attacks. Is it a pure dogfighter? Of course not. If you try to turn and burn in a 38 as if you're in a spit, then you're just asking to die. But there is very little funnier than someone in one of those itty-bitty gnat planes trying to follow you down from alt and get on your tail when you turn at speed and watch his wings fall off as he tries to follow.
-
Originally posted by cempa
Richard I. Bong, the first U.S. WWII ace to surpass Eddie Rickenbacker's WWI kills, and the U.S. WWII ace with the most kills altogether was a P-38 pilot.
The P-38 is a wonderful plane in AH2 for airfield attacks. Is it a pure dogfighter? Of course not. If you try to turn and burn in a 38 as if you're in a spit, then you're just asking to die. But there is very little funnier than someone in one of those itty-bitty gnat planes trying to follow you down from alt and get on your tail when you turn at speed and watch his wings fall off as he tries to follow.
Bong took years and two combat tours to reach 40 kills. David McCampbell shot down 34, with 3 probables and 6 damaged during a single deployment on a CV. This included 9 kills, 2 probables and two damaged during one sortie. Bong never even came remotely close to that accomplishment.
As the the P-38s in AH2; If you think the P-38 can't dogfight, then pray you never meet Ak Ak, KillnU, Fester, Kappa or even me for that matter. It has the ability to amaze...
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by cempa
The P-38 is a wonderful plane in AH2 for airfield attacks. Is it a pure dogfighter? Of course not. If you try to turn and burn in a 38 as if you're in a spit, then you're just asking to die.
Those inexperienced in the P-38 tend to have that misconception.
ack-ack
-
Also keep in mind that Bong was given priority assignements during his tour and often flew with whatever unit happened to be closest to the action.
That also attributed to his kill score.
I think had Sparks been allowed to stay in combat, he would have far surpassed Bong's kills if allowed.
-
Bringing it up to date -
NATO codenames for Russian aircraft start with the first letter of the aircraft type:
Fighters - Flanker, Foxbat, Flogger, Fulcrum etc
Bombers - Blackjack, Bear, Backfire, Badger etc
Helis - Havoc, Halo, Helix, Hokum etc
Cargo/Transports - Charger, Camel, Cooker
Miscellaneous - Mainstay, Midas
-
A few facts about McCampbell.
I am not aware of any other allied pilot who can match or exceed these remarkable numbers:
7 aerial kills plus 2 probables on June 19, 1944.
9 aerial kills plus 2 probables on October 24, 1944.
20 aircraft confirmed as destroyed on the ground.
34 confirmed air to air kills (the highest total of any US pilot during a single tour).
4 probables
6 damaged in air to air engagements.
All this was accomplished during one 7 month deployment.
Medals and awards include the following:
Congressional Medal of Honor
Navy Cross
Silver Star
Legion of Merit
Distinguished Flying Cross w/2 Gold Stars (that, I believe means 3 DFCs).
Air Medal
Quite a remarkable fellow....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
F4u's factory nickname was the U-bird.
Guys in the Pacific called it "The Bent Wing Bastard".
-
Originally posted by Widewing
A few facts about McCampbell.
I am not aware of any other allied pilot who can match or exceed these remarkable numbers:
7 aerial kills plus 2 probables on June 19, 1944.
9 aerial kills plus 2 probables on October 24, 1944.
20 aircraft confirmed as destroyed on the ground.
34 confirmed air to air kills (the highest total of any US pilot during a single tour).
4 probables
6 damaged in air to air engagements.
All this was accomplished during one 7 month deployment.
Medals and awards include the following:
Congressional Medal of Honor
Navy Cross
Silver Star
Legion of Merit
Distinguished Flying Cross w/2 Gold Stars (that, I believe means 3 DFCs).
Air Medal
Quite a remarkable fellow....
My regards,
Widewing
Yes, McCampbell had a very impressive record. You might, however, take note of something.
McCampbell's first kill came on June 11, 1944 with more to follow during the Essex' fabled tour. His kills in the Marianas' Turkey Shoot were mostly on Vals and Judys, against inexperienced pilots - many freshly trained recruits. The Marianas Turkey Shoot was called that for a reason. Many of McCampbell's kills were against dive bombers as well, during carrier battles.
28 of Bong's kills came before McCampbell's first kill. Bong's first two kills came on December 27, 1942, a Zero and an Oscar, for which he received the Silver Star. The majority of Bong's kills came against the more experienced Japanese pilots of the early part of the Pacific campaign. By the time McCampbell got his first kill most of the experienced Japanese fighter pilots were DEAD.
When Bong returned to combat in September of 1944, during the period in which McCampbell got most of his kills, Bong was specifically ordered to defend himself only and not to seek out the enemy. He still managed to get 12 kills, in spite of those orders. At 40 kills, he was grounded against his will by General Kenney and sent home to do more parading.
One wonders what Bong's kill total might have been if he had been allowed to participate in the Marianas Turkey Shoot. Hmmm?
If McCampbell had fought for more than one tour, then he might very well have surpassed Bong's 40 kills. However, had Bong been fighting during the same period as McCampbell, against the younger replacement pilots of Japan, and in the shooting fish in a barrel conditions of the later Pacific campaign instead of being ordered to only defend himself when necessary during that period, then he would certainly have far surpassed his 40 kills. So the point about McCampbell perhaps passing Bong's record is moot.
As for medals...
Richard Bong's:
Medal of Honor
Distinguished Service Cross
Silver Star (with 1 OLC)
Distinguished Flying Cross (with 6 OLC's)
Air Medal (with 14 OLC's)
and many more...
So, I think your point about McCampbell being a great pilot was a valid one. But suggesting that his record eclipses Bong's is not a valid point. They flew at essentially different periods in the Pacific. A case can be made for either one being the best; but Bong's record stands; and if we're going to play what-if, then I think Bong's what-if trumps McCampbell's. ;)
Have a nice day.
-
:lol Magoo
Zippo for the Sherman is funny :aok
-
It is pretty much impossible to compare the scores of pilots who flew in radically different situations .
Comparing McCampbell to Bong on an even basis is really impossible. You're trying to do something that cannot be done, there's no way to accurately and honestly correlate the two fairly.
It'd be the same if you attempted to compare Joe Foss to P.J Dahl, or Greg Boyington to Charles McDonald.
The differences in the quality of the pilots, and the planes, not to mention the battles, the time periods, or even the fortunes of war, make such comparisons pretty hard to do fairly and correctly.
-
Originally posted by cempa
So, I think your point about McCampbell being a great pilot was a valid one. But suggesting that his record eclipses Bong's is not a valid point. They flew at essentially different periods in the Pacific. A case can be made for either one being the best; but Bong's record stands; and if we're going to play what-if, then I think Bong's what-if trumps McCampbell's. ;)
Well, Bong was an HO weenie ;)
Seriously, a surprising amount of his kills were from head-on attacks.
In terms of victories per combat sortie, McCampbell easily exceeds Bong. In terms of speed of accumulation, McCampbell is once again far ahead of Bong. But yes, they flew under differing circumstances and McCampbell was right at the center of the most massive air battles in the Pacific.
As to what they shot down, they had very similar percentages of fighter/bomber/recce kills.
As to skill, opportunities, quality of the enemy... I'll discuss this some.
Bong's first kills were of a Zero and a Val (not an Oscar according to 49th FG records). His primary victims were Ki-43s, among the least able fighters in the IJAAF. McCampbell is credited with killing two Ki-27s, even less capable than the Oscar. McCampbell downed 5 Judys and two Zeros during the Turkey Shoot. All of his record 9 kills (and two probables, which were last seen spinning towards the ocean) were fighters, 7 Zeros and two Ki-43s. His wingman shot down 4 Zeros and one Oscar, while another squadronmate shot down 4 Zeros. It is believed (based upon Japanese records) that 40 fighters (31 Zeros, 9 Ki-43s) were in the group attacked by McCampbell, Rushing and Slack. 18 returned to base. This indicates that most of McCampbell's and Rushing's probable and damage claims failed to return. However, the fact that three Hellcats were able to overpower 40 Japanese fighters indicates that the Japanese weren't of more than poor to average quality and that the Navy pilots, in superior aircraft, were very, very good.
Bong's biggest day was on July 26, 1943 when he got four. Many of his kills were singles, 13 of them. He shot down 2 on ten occasions, with 3 on one and the above mentioned 4 on another. Bong was a steady scorer, but not prone to big days like McCampbell or McGuire. McCampbell generally scored in bunches, with 16 kills scored in two days.
Generally, they faced different enemies, with Bong largely fighting the IJAAF and McCampbell usually squaring off against the IJNAF. Some might argue that the IJNAF had superior pilots to the IJAAF. While this may be true at the beginning of the war, it was not so by mid 1944. Both branches were severely depleted. Bong faced pilots of greater skill than McCampbell, but McCampbell usually faced much larger concentrations of fighters.
Bong scored well against the IJNAF when he encountered them. McCampbell scored well against the IJAAF as well.
Someone pointed out that Bong had an advantage. During his second tour with the 5th AF HQ, he was able and allowed to pick and choose missions based upon the likelihood of enemy contact. McCampbell didn't enjoy that luxury. As CAG, he was airborne for every major action. However, that could be viewed as an equal advantage because Essex was smack in the middle of the largest carrier actions of the war up to that time.
Both of these men were extraordinary combat pilots, probably among the best their nation had to offer. They fought under different circumstances and excelled. But the question begs, if they had switched roles, who would have scored higher? We'll never know, but it's fun the theorize.
My regards,
Widewing
-
We're going to have to agree to disagree, Widewing. As I said, it isn't valid to compare the two pilots and claim one was better than the other. I brought up Bong in defense of the P-38. It wasn't my intention to turn it into a pissing match about whose hero has bigger balls.
And on the matter of the P-38 in AH. Some people need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills. I was defending the P-38 not the other way around. Go back and reread my post. I said the P-38 wasn't a pure dogfighter that can turn and burn like a spit. It isn't a pure dogfighter. Can it dogfight? Of course, and rather well. But it isn't a pure dogfighter. It can do other things, unlike a pure dogfighter. ;) If you want to go off on someone for attacking the P-38, maybe try going off on the correct post, not mine. I am a big fan of the P-38. It's my preferred plane to fly in AH2; unless I have top up from a cv, in which case I'll probably be in an F4U-1D (or a 1C if I feel like spending the perks).
It seems as if many flame wars on these boards get started because people want an excuse to argue and do so without actually reading the posts first. :)
"OMG! Oranges are not like that! Oranges are the best!"
"Uh, sport, the topic was apples and oranges weren't even mentioned until you did so."
"How can you direspect oranges like that, you heathen!"
"Whatever."
-
Originally posted by cempa
We're going to have to agree to disagree, Widewing. As I said, it isn't valid to compare the two pilots and claim one was better than the other. I brought up Bong in defense of the P-38. It wasn't my intention to turn it into a pissing match about whose hero has bigger balls.
And on the matter of the P-38 in AH. Some people need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills. I was defending the P-38 not the other way around. Go back and reread my post. I said the P-38 wasn't a pure dogfighter that can turn and burn like a spit. It isn't a pure dogfighter. Can it dogfight? Of course, and rather well. But it isn't a pure dogfighter. It can do other things, unlike a pure dogfighter. ;) If you want to go off on someone for attacking the P-38, maybe try going off on the correct post, not mine. I am a big fan of the P-38. It's my preferred plane to fly in AH2; unless I have top up from a cv, in which case I'll probably be in an F4U-1D (or a 1C if I feel like spending the perks).
Well, before you complain about reading comprehension, please point out where I said anyone was "better" than anyone else. I generally agreed with your comments.
As to the P-38, you said: "The P-38 is a wonderful plane in AH2 for airfield attacks. Is it a pure dogfighter? Of course not. If you try to turn and burn in a 38 as if you're in a spit, then you're just asking to die."
Well, it takes a better than average Spit driver to survive a dogfight with a decent P-38 driver (not your standard toolshed killer, btw).
No one enjoys the P-38 more than I do, and you would know that if you had been on these boards longer.
I'm not looking to flame anyone, just so you understand that.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Loddar
:lol Magoo
Zippo for the Sherman is funny :aok
WTF DID I SAY? it wasnt called the "zippo" it was called the "Ronson". this is because the Ronson Lighter Company's slogan was (are you paying attention?) "ALWAYS LIGHTS UP THE FIRST TIME". friggin coffin stuffers!
-
It is amazing how many decent post end up in the same circular file.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Well, before you complain about reading comprehension, please point out where I said anyone was "better" than anyone else. I generally agreed with your comments.
As to the P-38, you said: "The P-38 is a wonderful plane in AH2 for airfield attacks. Is it a pure dogfighter? Of course not. If you try to turn and burn in a 38 as if you're in a spit, then you're just asking to die."
Well, it takes a better than average Spit driver to survive a dogfight with a decent P-38 driver (not your standard toolshed killer, btw).
No one enjoys the P-38 more than I do, and you would know that if you had been on these boards longer.
I'm not looking to flame anyone, just so you understand that.
My regards,
Widewing
One last try.
"If you try to turn and burn in a 38 as if you're in a spit" is not the same thing as saying turn and burn against a spit. Read it again. Let me reword it for you. If you try to fly the 38 like a spit, then you're just asking to die. Clearer now? My post about Bong and about 38's in general was intended as a response to Furball's three comments about the nickname of the P-38.
You did not "generally agree" with my comments in your first response to my post. You argued against Bong and against what you seem to think I said about P-38's. I recommend that you go back and read your first response to my post. It certainly comes across as disparaging of Bong's accomplishments, and implied that McCampbell was better - in two posts.
So, we'll just chalk it up to your misreading my post and the intent of my post and leave it at that, shall we?
:aok
-
Originally posted by cempa
One last try.
"If you try to turn and burn in a 38 as if you're in a spit" is not the same thing as saying turn and burn against a spit. Read it again. Let me reword it for you. If you try to fly the 38 like a spit, then you're just asking to die. Clearer now? My post about Bong and about 38's in general was intended as a response to Furball's three comments about the nickname of the P-38.
You can re-phrase it if you want, but your conclusion is still incorrect. I "turn and burn" in the P-38 quite frequently and I do not die... Hell, I fly the F4U the same way and guess what? I don't die in those either.
One of the acknowledged P-38 "experts" has disagreed with your initial comments as well.
So as to have a better basis to understand your point of view, please describe how you think one should fly a Spitfire.
Your other comments in your first post were:
"But there is very little funnier than someone in one of those itty-bitty gnat planes trying to follow you down from alt and get on your tail when you turn at speed and watch his wings fall off as he tries to follow."
It's pretty clear to me that you don't care to "turn and burn" in the P-38. There's nothing wrong with that, it's your dime... However, don't prejudge those that can and do turn fight effectively with it.
Understanding what you can do with any airplane is a matter of thoroughly knowing its abilities and limitations. Even more important is knowing one's own abilities and limitations. If you have the ability and the confidence to fly the P-38 "like a Spitfire", then the odds are you will also be successful at it. However, what you did was make a statement based upon what you know and believe you can do. Do yourself a favor and don't project your personal limits on the airplane. Likewise, just because don't think you can do something, don't presuppose that others cannot do it either.
My regards,
Widewing
-
See Rule #4
-
No offense intended at all Cempa but you remind me of a person that got caught on video with his hand in the cookie jar and is trying to defend himself by telling everyone they aren't seeing what they are seeing.
You did make the statement that if you flew the P-38 like a Spitfire you'd not live for very long. While this is true for inexperienced players that try this in the P-38 but those that make this our primary ride are quite comfortable to fly the P-38 in such a manner and are quite successful at it. YMMV .
ack-ack
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by cempa
See Rule #4
My my, such a pissy argument... No one misread anything other than what you wrote. If you meant something else, then write what you mean.
I have not made any effort to insult you, but you apparently have a micro-thin skin. So be it. I cannot understand why you insist on making a big deal out of this, and I find it preposterous that you still attempt to parse your original comment.
Without cause or justification, you call me disrespectful, arrogant and insincere. Bad form there fella. Especially since you have been the one dripping of condescension from the outset... Kinda full of yourself, aren't you?
Widewing
-
Originally posted by cempa
Are you trying to claim that you fly a P-38 just like a spit, Ack-Ack? Just like one? I don't think so. Unless you fly it just like (as in exactly like - look up the words, if they're causing you difficulty) a spit, then you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, nitpicking just to be spiteful.
Is it possible to be more obtuse? Now you're calling someone else names...
Ack-Ack, he called you a Richard! Egad, he says you're spiteful person too!
Spiteful? Cempa, spiteful would be calling your score into account to show that you fly with the same level of craft with which you argue. But, we're not spiteful here....
Widewing
-
Originally posted by cempa
Are you trying to claim that you fly a P-38 just like a spit, Ack-Ack? Just like one? I don't think so. Unless you fly it just like (as in exactly like - look up the words, if they're causing you difficulty) a spit, then you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, nitpicking just to be spiteful.
You should see me fly a Spitfire and then fly a P-38. The only difference you'll notice are that the planes are different. Whatever I do in the Spitfire (in the very rare times I fly it) I do the exact same thing in the P-38 and vice versa.
ack-ack
-
Thats because you hack Ack-Ack ;)
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Also keep in mind that Bong was given priority assignements during his tour and often flew with whatever unit happened to be closest to the action.
Bongs "freelance tour" was only 3 months long, during which he scored #s 22-28. After that he was in theater assigned as a gunnery instructor, and used creative means to find combat. Like 'observing' his gunnery students, or slipping his way into Leyte because he was qualified under the order "Send only experts on short landings in this first contingent". After his 28th victory, he was half-heartedly discouraged from combat.
Shortly after 12 April 44. Message from the Pentagon to Gen. Kenney
Concern is expressed over the high loss rate of fighter pilots who have shot down many enemy aircraft. Your comments are requested concerning the desirability of restricting from action combat flying or return to United States of this type of personnel. A case in point is Captain Bong, who is credited with twenty-seven enemy aircraft. Only very recently we have lost the invaluable services of Colonels Kearby and Lynch.
Arnold
11 Oct 44 From Gen Kenney to Gen Arnold:
During the strike on Balikpapan by five heavy-bomber groups on October 10th, Major Richard Bong in a P-38 accompanied the escorting fighters to observe the results of the gunnery instructions he had been giving since his return from the United States. While conducting his observations, he was forced in self-defense to shoot down two Nip aircraft. While regrettable, this brings his offical score to thirty enemy aircraft destroyed in aerial combat. Have cautioned Bong to be more careful in the future.
Kenney
Reply:
Congratulations to Major Bong on his continued mastery of the manly art of self-defense. Feel sure your warning will have desired effect
Arnold
29 OCT to Gen Arnold
In accordance with my instructions, Major Richard Bong is trying to be careful, but the Nips won't do their part. On the twenty-seventh, five hours after arriving at Tacloban, Bong was again forced to defend himself and number thirty-one resulted. On the twenty-eighth, while looking for suitable localities for airdromes in the vicinity of Tacloban, he was assaulted by two more Nips who became numbers thirty-two and thirty-three. Unless he was bothered again today, this is his latest score.
Kenney
Arnold's reply
Major Bong's excuses in matter of shooting down three more Nips noted with happy skepticism by this headquarters. In Judge Advocate's opinion, he is liable under Articles of War 122 (willful or negligent damage to enemy equipment or personnel).
Arnold
-
Well Cempa, I suspect that after Skuzzy reads this on Monday you're likely to be censured... Certainly the content of your posts will be deleted at the minimum.
Is there any particular reason why you cannot behave yourself and argue without nasty personal attacks and inappropriate language? Your bad form only gets worse with each post.
Widewing
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #6
-
See Rule #4
-
I'll let you 80th level wizards with the really leet magic wands discuss your virtual leetness among yourselves.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I just wasted 15 minutes reading this whole thread.
Cempa has a good point. He was busted in the chops for something he was percieved to say, and even after he explained it he was busted again. I think WW should take a close look at the chest pounding he's doing in this thread and maybe make amends.
Regardless
MT
Horsechit. From both you and cempa.
Here is what he said:
Richard I. Bong, the first U.S. WWII ace to surpass Eddie Rickenbacker's WWI kills, and the U.S. WWII ace with the most kills altogether was a P-38 pilot.
The P-38 is a wonderful plane in AH2 for airfield attacks. Is it a pure dogfighter? Of course not. If you try to turn and burn in a 38 as if you're in a spit, then you're just asking to die. But there is very little funnier than someone in one of those itty-bitty gnat planes trying to follow you down from alt and get on your tail when you turn at speed and watch his wings fall off as he tries to follow.
[/I]
I'm pretty sure Bong was not the first to beat Rickenbacker, I'm pretty sure it was Joe Foss. And then Boyington.
Further, the people Widewing mentioned will blow the vast majority of people right out of the sky should those people should decide to TnB with them.
Not to mention, while designed originally as a bomber interceptor, the P-38 was a pretty adept dogfighter, in pretty much every theater it was deployed in, provided it was flown by an accomplished P-38 pilot.
Widewing isn't doing much chest thumping, but cempa is slinging a ton of Bravo Sierra defending a statement he never should have made.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Cempa has a good point.
Then he should wear a hat....
"Chest Thumping"?? Please, get a grip. Better yet, troll somewhere else.
This thread will likely be locked, and not due to holding Cempa's feet to the fire for his mis-statement, but for the outright nastiness he has introduced into it.
I'm not interested in crawling into the gutter and exchanging insults with this guy.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I have come across all those guys mentioned and lost more than i have beaten them, however, i have beaten them enough to know that the 38 isn't an uber plane, it's the pilot flying them that makes the difference. AKAK doesn't miss many shots, Widewing is a mind reader and kappa, killnu and lazzer don't give you a chance at an advatage at the expense of perhaps trying to gain one on you. Fester is a God, but I also have beaten him (3 times to be exact :)). Pilot, not the plane.
-
Bravo Sierra... how neato of you to use that militalk.
Fer crying out loud. Maybe the guy mispoke. Maybe not. The point is that he clarified his point and he was still treated like a p-38 upping from a capped field.
Oh and WW.... maybe some people have a point to make and maybe it isn't even trolling. Maybe just maybe it's just somebody who disagrees with you.
Rigar mortis
MT
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I'm pretty sure Bong was not the first to beat Rickenbacker, I'm pretty sure it was Joe Foss. And then Boyington.
Nope, Bong was the first.
-
"Chest Thumping"?? Please, get a grip. Better yet, troll somewhere else.
Ive read alot of widewing's posts and ive never seen him "Chest thump" lol. He knows his stuff ,his posts are some of the most informative reading in here, calling him a braggart and other garbage is far off base . 38
-
Bong was the first because when Joe Foss got his 26, they sent him home to the USA. Foss was the first American ace to equal Rickenbackers WW1 score, flying F4Fs in the Solomons.
-
Originally posted by cempa
Thanks for the support, MT. I just don't think they get it. They're still going off on me while the guy who really did dis the P-38 in this thread hasn't had a word said to him. It's pathetic. It's a prime example of the good 'ol boys club.
I don't mean to offend, but it seems to me that you don't get it cempa. Please allow me to explain my reasoning:
- Furball was speaking in jest, and not many people here ever take him seriously. This is the guy who produced the "Nooook!" picture, after all :D. If you were registered here for more then 14 days at max, you would realize this.
- AKAK is one of the finest 38 pilots in the game. Period. Run a search for some threads on the 38 and you will find films, descriptions, and testimonials to back this claim up. There's actually a really good thread about the P38 vs. the old SpitV which would be right up your alley. You should read what he has to say in there before claiming he's agreeing with Widewing just to be a "Richard".
- Widewing is a very respected gentleman and a very capable pilot. All I got from his first few posts was that he was having a civil discussion with you, and respectfully disagreeing. One might call such a thing a debate. It is possible, you know, to have such a talk without resorting to name calling. This does require some tact and maturity.
- What I have read from your posts leads me to believe that you are either a troll, a newbie who is getting off to a fabulous start here, or a person who may be young, and may be ashamed, upon reflection and aging, of the way they acted when they were younger (aka, now).
I really wasn't trying to offend you when I sat down to type this. I'm not sure that really worked out.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Nope, Bong was the first.
Foss tied Rickenbacker on January 15, 1943. Number 27 was not observed to crash, so it was scored a probable.
10 days later he was sent home. Malaria kept Foss from seeing combat again as CO of VMF-115 (F4U-1) and he was forced to give up command due to his illness.
Bong scored his 27th on April 12, 1944.
Robert Johnson got his 27th about 3 weeks later.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Boyington, I've read a lot of doubt that he did reach that score, but his book was as good as Rickenbacker's if not better
-
Bong was officially credited as being the first to beat Rickenbackers score...thats all I was saying, and it is correct.
-
"I alway thought the P38 was a bomber"
Excerpt from my new book : "how to make friend" by Straffo :D
-
"I alway thought the P38 was a bomber"
That's ok, Straffo. The Luftwaffe thought it was just a target.
It was mentioned as the most desirable USAAF fighter to encounter in air combat.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
and furball, most of the american aces in WWII were P38 pilots and P47 pilots. so stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a source to back that up? From what I've read, #1 and #2 for american aces were the F6F and P-51 respectively.
-
It's a joke Crumpp !
I don't know what the german thought of the P38 ,the only think I know is some of the P38 jockey present in the thread can wipe me like if I was a fly.
-
I don't know what the german thought of the P38
Wish picturehanger was up so I could post this document. Found a combat report from JG2 dated 14 Dec 1942.
In it the P38 is refered too as the "Großer Gewehrkugelschwamm". Not sure what that means.
So there we have it.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I beleive he meant for the USAAF re aces.
I do think the F6F actually produced the most US aces for any one type, but I will have to dig that one up. It has to be amongst the top contenders.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Foss tied Rickenbacker on January 15, 1943. Number 27 was not observed to crash, so it was scored a probable.
10 days later he was sent home. Malaria kept Foss from seeing combat again as CO of VMF-115 (F4U-1) and he was forced to give up command due to his illness.
Bong scored his 27th on April 12, 1944.
Robert Johnson got his 27th about 3 weeks later.
My regards,
Widewing
So Cempa was correct?
-
April '44 Rickenbacker to Bong
Just received the good news that you are the first one to break my record in World War I by bringing down 27 planes in combat, as well as your promotion, so justly deserved. I hasten to offer my sincere congratulations with the hope that you will double or triple this number. But in trying, use the same calculating techniques that has brought you results to date, for we will need your kind back home after this war is over. My promise of a case of Scotch still holds. So be on the lookout for it.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That's ok, Straffo. The Luftwaffe thought it was just a target.
It was mentioned as the most desirable USAAF fighter to encounter in air combat.
All the best,
Crumpp
And yet had a good combat record against LW planes during the war and in AH, no LW planes can match the P-38 in a fight.
Enjoy,
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Sable
Just out of curiosity, do you have a source to back that up? From what I've read, #1 and #2 for american aces were the F6F and P-51 respectively.
In the PTO, the majority of the USAAF aces were P-38 pilots, followed by P-40 pilots then P-47 pilots and finally P-51 pilots bringing up the rear.
ack-ack
-
And yet had a good combat record against LW planes during the war and in AH, no LW planes can match the P-38 in a fight.
Hook set. I know I would get one Straffo.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
In the PTO, the majority of the USAAF aces were P-38 pilots, followed by P-40 pilots then P-47 pilots and finally P-51 pilots bringing up the rear.
ack-ack
Ahhhh ... you are just talking USAAF in the PTO ... gotcha. :aok
-
In it the P38 is refered too as the "Großer Gewehrkugelschwamm". Not sure what that means.
Crumpp - I looked this up in a German to English dictionary on the web and apparently it translates loosely as "The big bullet sponge" (SCHEISS!) Maybe bullet magnet as read by a co-worker who took German in college.
Magoo
-
cempa it is not a matter of 'good old boys'. The so called 'good old boys' have observed the BBS enough to know what will and wont be acceptable postings....even though they dont always abide by it. Often it isnt what you say, but the manner in which you say it.
I am also one of the '38 jockeys' and I disagreed with your original assessment of how not to fly the 38, but I stayed out of that aspect since it was already heavly covered.
-
WTF DID I SAY? it wasnt called the "zippo" it was called the "Ronson". this is because the Ronson Lighter Company's slogan was (are you paying attention?) "ALWAYS LIGHTS UP THE FIRST TIME". friggin coffin stuffers!
Lighten up Smidsy ;) try some de-caf
He thought it was funny because I screwed it up so bad!
Oh, and thanks for correcting me :aok
Magoo
-
Crumpp - I looked this up in a German to English dictionary on the web and apparently it translates loosely as "The big bullet sponge" (SCHEISS!) Maybe bullet magnet as read by a co-worker who took German in college.
Wonder if they could be refering to the P 38's toughness and ability to take damage?
:huh
All the best,
Crumpp
-
See Rule #16
-
According to Barret Tillmans book, the F6F was indeed the USAs top ace maker, 307 USN and USMC pilots scoring 5 or more.
The book also claims 275 Aces for the P-51 Mustang.
John Stanaways two books on the P-38 lists 157 USAAF P-38 aces in WW2.
Would be interesting to get the other totals, just to have a look at them. I think the P-51 is higher than one might think because although it was a late starter, so many FGs eventually flew it.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Squire
According to Barret Tillmans book, the F6F was indeed the USAs top ace maker, 307 USN and USMC pilots scoring 5 or more.
If we look at fighters deployed to the Pacific, we find that the F6F was the biggest killer by a substantial margin.
PTO/SWPA kills by type.
F6F-3/5: 5,156 kills, 307 aces
F4U (all): 2,140 kills, 93 aces
P-38 (all): 1,717 kills, 90 aces
F4Fs/FMs: 1,514 kills, 84 aces
P-39 (all): 243 kills, 1 ace
P-40 (all): 706 kills, 28 aces
P-47 (all): 697 kills, 32 aces
P-51 (all): 296 kills, 5 aces
P-61: 63 kills, 1 ace
One huge advantage for the F6F, F4F-4 and later F4U pilots was that their carriers brought them to the fight. Most USAAF fighter pilots had to bring themselves to where the enemy was. This may not seem significant on the face of it, but it was critical in terms of opportunites to engage the enemy. P-39s were the shortest range fighters of the lot and not able to fly the long distances to reach Japanese air power. Navy fighters were delivered to a location where the enemy was, usually in large numbers. Ace George Welch logged well over 100 P-39 sorties and encountered Japanese aircraft just once (he made the most of it, shooting down 3).
USAAF pilots in the SWPA simply did not get the number of opportunities as Navy carrier pilots, and that is reflected in the total scoring.
Even with its long range, the P-38s usually had to fly hours to encounter the Japanese. Such was the nature of things in the Southwest Pacific.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Boyington claimed 4-5 kills but the planes were on the ground, and the Navy didn't want to count them, as they did not count planes that were on the ground. So whether he beat Rickenbacker is up to debate.
-
I remember reading some AVG pilot's book, Robert Goebel's I think, saying Boyington's claims with the AVG were overstated by about four. Read it a long time ago, though, so i'm likely inaccurate. Anyway, 19 is a major score also
-
Originally posted by cempa
See Rule #4
You've spent your entire time trying to say that we didn't read what you posted originally correctly.
The P-38 is a wonderful plane in AH2 for airfield attacks. Is it a pure dogfighter? Of course not. If you try to turn and burn in a 38 as if you're in a spit, then you're just asking to die.
There's really not much to get confused. You clearly stated that if you try and turn fight in a P-38, you're going to die quickly.
I and a few others called you on it, we know your statement is incorrect as we have a little more experience in flying the plane in AH than you do and we know what the Lightning is and isn't capable of. Again, if you want example do a search of the AH boards. You'll find plenty of films of us doing exactly what you said would result in our demise if we tried.
You weren't trashed because you said it wasn't a pure dog fighter. We all know that the P-38 isn't. It's a jack of all trades and is able to perform in all roles equally well. Heck, it was a pretty decent level bomber when it was used in that role. Where we disagreed with you was in your first statement about trying to turn fight in the P-38. Again, I just merely pointed out that this statement was most likely (actually 100% positive) a result of your inexperience in flying the Lightning.
So, in conclusion, we are not the ones with reading comprehension problems. We never blasted you for using the P-38 in one if its historical roles (attack) nor did we ever say you should only fly it to "dogfight".
ack-ack
-
The F6F fought off of Okinawa and the Home Islands after the war had ended for the P-38 in the Phillipines too, and they were deployed in large #s in the Fast Carrier Groups. More Hellcats flying for longer, that and the CVs were able to deliver them to the hot zones, and they bore the brunt of the Kamikaze strikes 44-45, where the IJ forces came looking for them, in large #s.
Its apples and oranges anyways, but its still interesting just to see the stats.
The P-40 as USAAF #2 in PTO is illustrative as to its length of service and hard use.
-
See Rule #4/#5/#2
-
Originally posted by cempa
See Rule #4/#5/#2
Cempa, yesterday was a good day to let this thread die. This post of yours was an ugly mistake.
- oldman
-
I'm just seeing how often others are allowed to freely insult people while some are not. Call it an experiment in favoritism. Others question my experience and skills (see multiple usage of the word "inexperienced" by both Widewing and Ack-ack); but I can not reply in kind. Fair? Hardly. Typical? Absolutely. Someone has to look himself in the mirror and accept the tag of biased. That won't change even after I'm banned. The mirror, and the bias, will still be there - staring back. ;)
Rule #2 was invoked on my post? Interesting.
When I posted about Bong using the P-38 and my fondness for the P-38, that was on just barely on topic, certainly as on topic as Widewing's response. How was Widewing's post about McCampbell on topic? What does McCampbell's record have to do with the nickname of P-38's, or even P-38's at all? Pure, indefensible favoritism and bias. As a matter of fact, how was your post on topic, Oldman?
Does this mean that Skuzzy doesn't love me anymore? Maybe I should have sent flowers. Maybe Skuzzy should read rule #4 a little more closely and apply it to Ack-ack and Widewing's insulting posts. Or at the very least, apply it evenly. That goes for all the rules, doesn't it? If they aren't applied equally, then aren't they simply a matter of whim? That's when the favoritism and bias slip into the mix. Skuzzy was correct to delete all of the involved posts when he did it the first time. But, for some reason, he choose to come back and reinstate Widewing's and Ack-ack's posts in the argument and just delete mine. Not even an attempt at honest and fair application of the rules, the second time around.
Rules that aren't applied fairly aren't really rules at all. Just a form of power display. Since they aren't rules, they must not apply to me. When they're applied fairly, I'll abide by them.
Start the office pool on how long this post lasts.
:aok
-
Calling you inexperienced is hardly an insult. If you feel that it is then I would highly recommend you develop a little thicker skin.
I actually found Widewing's post about McCambell to be very interesting in a "What if..." kind of way. It's sad that you felt otherwise because it did open an interesting debate but again, your lack of a thick skin precluded you from contributing anything significant.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Calling you inexperienced is hardly an insult. If you feel that it is then I would highly recommend you develop a little thicker skin.
I actually found Widewing's post about McCambell to be very interesting in a "What if..." kind of way. It's sad that you felt otherwise because it did open an interesting debate but again, your lack of a thick skin precluded you from contributing anything significant.
ack-ack
And you really don't see any of the above as insulting? Amazing.
The McCampbell post was entirely off-topic. Interesting? Absolutely. We were having a nice discussion about it. Until I took exception to his and your patronizing and insulting posts and responded in kind. ;)
If my post about you being shot down by a first night, fresh out of the box newbie in a spit yesterday was off-topic (as it seems Skuzzy thinks), then so was the McCampbell post. What, exactly, does your post above have to do with P-38's, much less P-38 nicknames, Ack-ack? Is it on topic? No. Is it insulting? Yes. Who decides whether something is insulting or not? The person delivering the insult, or the intended victim? Does your post above mean that I can decide that calling someone an bellybutton isn't an insult; and therefore - pooof - it isn't an insult? I don't think so, sport.
If you were qualified to call me inexperienced in a P-38, then possibly one might deem your posts merely patronizing and not insulting. But since you proved the opposite yesterday, it can only be seen as insulting.
Have a nice day.
:aok
-
Originally posted by cempa
And you really don't see any of the above as insulting? Amazing.
The McCampbell post was entirely off-topic. Interesting? Absolutely. We were having a nice discussion about it. Until I took exception to his and your patronizing and insulting posts and responded in kind. ;)
If my post about you being shot down by a first night, fresh out of the box newbie in a spit yesterday...
If you were qualified to call me inexperienced in a P-38, then possibly one might deem your posts merely patronizing and not insulting. But since you proved the opposite yesterday, it can only be seen as insulting.
Have a nice day.
:aok
What are you talking about? I only took one flight yesterday that lasted less than 20 minutes which resulted in my landing 7 kills before logging off to hit the sack. If you're speaking about the other night when I was helping bomb GVs at a Rookie field, the only plane that shot me down was mcappy when he caught me fighting another Rookie and came in for the pick. The other two deaths were the result of being hit by manned acks and a flak panzie.
If you would like to get better in the P-38, give me a holler and I'll be glad to show you how to fly one in here. Heck, you might even get good enough that you can turn off the stall limiter (now that was an insult).
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
What are you talking about? I only took one flight yesterday that lasted less than 20 minutes which resulted in my landing 7 kills before logging off to hit the sack. If you're speaking about the other night when I was helping bomb GVs at a Rookie field, the only plane that shot me down was mcappy when he caught me fighting another Rookie and came in for the pick. The other two deaths were the result of being hit by manned acks and a flak panzie.
If you would like to get better in the P-38, give me a holler and I'll be glad to show you how to fly one in here. Heck, you might even get good enough that you can turn off the stall limiter (now that was an insult).
ack-ack
Do you not fly under the name AKAK? If you don't fly under the name AKAK, then I apologize.
If you do, then we both know that your statement above was a blatant lie, and so does everyone else over that field. Including the others not listed who shot you down, in that one field fight. At that "rookie" field, I shot you down twice. Once in a C-205 and once in a manned ack. I also witnessed you being shot down by a brand new player who had only a few minutes before asked how to find a field with people to fight. I didn't ask what plane he was flying. We'll assume he was in a spit. When some of us were laughing about it on the country channel chat, and I asked the others if we should tell him about the rep of the person in the P-38, he said "I shot down some guy in a big-ass plane. His name was Akak." At that point a discussion ensued about what might have prompted you to come down from 35K. The consensus seemed to be you wanted to vulch. Was that not you? :aok
-
Yes, my in game handle is AKAK.
As for the attack on the base, the 2nd time I was shot down I thought it was by the flak panzie since I was in the process of bombing it and died on my egress. If it was you in the C.205, nice cherry pick. As for the other player's claim...I call BS on that one. IIRC, there were 2 109's, La7, C.205 and a Spitfire XVI. The Spitfire never engaged me once during that time, I was engaged by the 2 109s (a G-14 and a F) and the La7. The C.205 for the most part avoided me as well as the Spitfire XVI. Nice try though...please come and try again.
ack-ack
BTW- Offer still stands for me to show you how to fly the P-38 in here if you're interested in getting better in it. I know it's not as alluring as a manned ack but it's got its good points.
-
Originally posted by straffo
See Rule #16
Well skuzzy , this one was stupid !
Will you apply rule #16 if I post : "veni vidi vici" " L'étoile du Nord" "dieu et mon droit" ?
-
Straffo, maybe you should change part of your sig to read æquitas delenda est?
Ack-ack, there's no point in even discussing it with you. If you can't even be honest about getting shot down and by whom, then nothing else you say is believable. I saw that newb shoot you down. All of us at the field did. His name was bRrumble or RumbleB or something similar. I don't know what plane he was flying; but he sure did make it look easy for a guy who was asking newb questions. And if it feels better for you to call my shooting you down a cherry pick, then more power to you. We all got a good laugh at your expense on the Rook channel. Have a nice day.
:aok