Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: LEADPIG on July 06, 2006, 10:48:28 PM
-
Some interesting pilot accounts i found from various books that survivng WW2 aces have written about their accounts with the P-38 during the war.
Also a interesting one by Adolf Galland:
'P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.'
Adolf Galland
1) "Johannes Steinhoff, Kommodore of JG 77 in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, flying Bf 109s, had this to say about the P-38, 'I had encountered the long-range P-38 Lightning fighter during the last few days of the North African campaign, Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were still, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening. The machine guns mounted on the nose supposedly produced a concentration of fire from which there was no escape. Certainly the effect was reminiscent of a watering can when one of those dangerous apparitions started firing tracer, and it was essential to prevent them manoeuvring into a position from which they could bring their guns to bear." P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984, page 21.
2) "Oberleutnant Franz Steigler, a 28 victory ace in the Bf 109 with JG 27 in North Africa, said the P-38s "could turn inside us with ease and they could go from level flight to climb almost instantaneously. We lost quite a few pilots who tried to make an attack and then pull up. The P-38s were on them at once. They closed so quickly that there was little one could do except roll quickly and dive down, for while the P-38 could turn inside us, it rolled very slowly through the first 5 or 10 degrees of bank, and by then we would already be gone. One cardinal rule we never forgot was: avoid fighting a P-38 head on. That was suicide. Their armament was so heavy and their firepower so murderous, that no one ever tried that type of attack more than once."P-38 Lightning, by Jeffrey Ethell/The Great Book of WWII Airplanes, Bonanaza Books, 1984Pages 21,22.
3. (Heinz Knoke description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):
"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...."
-
I'm sure Galland got supplied with the best planes Germany could produce, and maybe as important, the best quality fuel germany could plunder ;) combined with Galland's ruthless efficiency, its no surprise he and his gruppen never had trouble with them.
The average P-38 pilot was probably not pushing the P-38 to the edge maybe Galland himself could have, and worst of all, P-38 squadrons in Europe were using lower quality petrol not suited for the plane.
The other gruppens did not think so lightly of the plane, as we can see from almost any other instance of luftwaffe pilot accounts. They probably were using their planes on the same supply conditions.
-
Good post, Hopefully nuggethead Glasses will read and understand, assuming this was intended for him. :D
-
4. Herr Wolfgang von Wolfgang, JG69
"...the p-38 is a fat piece of junk, i love shooting pieces off of them and making them explode"
-
Originally posted by SFCHONDO
Good post, Hopefully nuggethead Glasses will read and understand, assuming this was intended for him. :D
Thanks, i love making my fellow AH, heads smile :D
-
Originally posted by Furball
4. Herr Wolfgang von Wolfgang, JG69
"...the p-38 is a fat piece of junk, i love shooting pieces off of them and making them explode"
Bah! That's nothing!
"I wreck em faster then Lockheed can build em!" CorkyJr, 80th FS "Headhunters" P38G Driver
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1151024057_38landing.jpg)
-
waiting for fanboi ack ack to turn up
wipass
-
nice post...but you wont ever turn a hardened Germanphile like Glasses. In his mind the 109 turns like a Fokker DR1, climbs like the Space Shuttle, and has the armament of the A10. How could such a superior piece of German machinery ever lose to something made and flown by inbred American swine?
-
Originally posted by wipass
waiting for fanboi ack ack to turn up
wipass
Nah...I'd rather just sit back and watch you Luftwhiners whine.
ack-ack
-
Stop speading legends Leadpig,
There is like usual more than one opinion,even from the same person :
Generalleutnant Galland :
'The Lightning (P38) This aircraft was very fast and had a good rate of climb below 20,000 feet. Visibility backwards , downwards and over the engines was very poor.It was considered a good strafer due to its armament ,visibilty,speed and silent motors.Its main drawback were its vulnerability and lack of maneuverability.On the deck, it could out-run the me.109 and fw190.German fighters would always attack the P38s in preference to other allied escort fighters.'
-
Rall had something similar to say, but later was impressed when he flew the machine. Well, it was a bigger target....
But again, he was very impressed with the P47, P51 and the Spitfire.
He refers to the 109 as somewhat insufficient in fighting those.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Stop speading legends Leadpig,
There is like usual more than one opinion,even from the same person :
Generalleutnant Galland :
'The Lightning (P38) This aircraft was very fast and had a good rate of climb below 20,000 feet. Visibility backwards , downwards and over the engines was very poor.It was considered a good strafer due to its armament ,visibilty,speed and silent motors.Its main drawback were its vulnerability and lack of maneuverability.On the deck, it could out-run the me.109 and fw190.German fighters would always attack the P38s in preference to other allied escort fighters.'
straffo this is no different from what Leadpig posted, Galland's opinion was that the P-38 was not maneuverable. But I believe its not a valid opinion since few people could outmaneuver Galland and his men unless they were flying Spitfires :)
The P-38L is an interceptor, a role it was ruthlessly efficient as. Bombers and attackers stood no chance against it, and when american intelligence found about officers and VIP's squeduled to fly somewhere, they usually sent the P-38 to assasinate them to make sure the job was done. That it was also an above average dog fighter is only a perk.
-
Originally posted by Connection
But I believe its not a valid opinion since few people could outmaneuver Galland and his men unless they were flying Spitfires :)
Yep like Col. John Lowell.
ack-ack
-
Yep like Col. John Lowell.
Ah, you mean the unproven claim by Lowell that's been propagated for ages amongst P-38 fans? Here's one very famous objection to Lowell's claims which I'm sure many of us had seen around for some time.
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.
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.
(contd.)
-
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.
So how did Lowell fight Galland who wasn't anywhere around the time and place he described, who was supposedly in a fighter that wasn't even in service yet?
-
We've done this one a hundred times already. Let's NOT do it 101 times :)
Suffice to say that there is reason to doubt the validity of the story.
-
yup Guppy.
And sadly he's not the only one.
-
Oh c’mon, let’s not judge the guy too harshly. After all, pilot stories have a lot in common with fishing stories.
“I swear the Focke-Wulf was THIS <----------------------------------------------> BIG!” ;)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
We've done this one a hundred times already. Let's NOT do it 101 times :)
Sorry, I just got a new fishing pole and some stinky bait and couldn't resist testing it out. :)
ack-ack
-
Sorry, I just got a new fishing pole and some stinky bait and couldn't resist testing it out
You're right - it was stinky.
-
Anyway what did this Lowell guy do, was he the one that claimed he could outturn a Spit by pulling until stall, ease off then pulling again? Sounds dubious?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
You're right - it was stinky.
And you bit =)
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Anyway what did this Lowell guy do, was he the one that claimed he could outturn a Spit by pulling until stall, ease off then pulling again? Sounds dubious?
Actually there is enough evidence to show that story probably did happen but what I was referring to was the story that Lowell chased down and forced Galland to run for his life during an engagement.
ack-ack
-
Anyway what did this Lowell guy do,
He told lies...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
He told lies...
Yeah, like Galland did.
-
about what..? Show a 'Galland lie'...
Lowell OTOH should change his call sign to:
(http://bratboyschool.com/bulletin/Pinocchio.gif)
-
Damn, not a bad day for fishing. Hooked me two fish with the "Lowell Stinky Bait".
I wonder how many I can catch with the "P-38 flaps" bait?
ack-ack
-
My reply has nothing to do with you, LEADPIG asked:
Anyway what did this Lowell guy do
The answer is:
(http://bratboyschool.com/bulletin/Pinocchio.gif)
Anyway get back to main I sure you have auto-climbed to 50k by now...
-
Two engines to take care of,twice as many things to go wrong,needs twice as much fuel,very unrelble,cant take cold eastern weather.
Nahhhh,no good for war
-
2 engines, a lot further range, better overall firepower, much heavier payload, better pilot survivability... horrible for war;)
-
Originally posted by Raptor
2 engines, a lot further range, better overall firepower, much heavier payload, better pilot survivability... horrible for war;)
I think p 38 shouldve had something like 110 gun package
-
I think p 38 shouldve had something like 110 gun package
I think it should have packed just two Hispanos in the nose. That would have given it the advantage of virtually the same amount of firepower as the standard armament at a much less weight, plus the added advantage of two explosive cannon shells impacting the target at close proximities for maximum effect.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Some interesting pilot accounts i found from various books that survivng WW2 aces have written about their accounts with the P-38 during the war.
Wouldn't be complete without these excerpts from Roger Freeman's book on Zemke.
- oldman (I copied them down some years ago as part of an argument, might as well make them available for this one.)
From “Zemke’s Wolf Pack,” as told to Roger Freeman, Airlife Publishing Ltd. 1988, U.S. printing by Crown Publishers, Inc., ISBN 0-517-57330-X.
[On August 11, 1944 command of the 479th FG became available and was offered to Dave Schilling, the second in command of the 56th. Zemke told Schilling (at pp. 189-190):]
“I’ve got a group for you.” Dave’s face sparkled. “The 479th,” I continued. “Riddle went down.” There was an abrupt change of attitude: “Hell no, not P-38s.” I told him they were about to transition to P-51s but his disquiet at the prospect of commanding the 479th was expressed in a few choice four-letter words. This was the response I had anticipated. “Okay, Dave, I’ll tell you what we’ll do. You take the 56th and I’ll go to the 479th.”
[So Zemke took over the 479th. At pages 192-193:]
A careful look at the 479th’s operational record was a first step. The group had come to England in May [1944] and had set a record by going operational in eleven days, although I suspected it might have been hustled so as to have some missions under its belt by D-Day. In two and a half months the group had shot down ten enemy aircraft while losing some 35 of its own pilots killed or missing. True, most of the combat losses had been to ground fire during strafing raids. Even so, they appeared excessively high and I suspected a weakness in technique and general leadership.
A contributory factor to these high losses was the type of aircraft. The Lockheed P38 Lightning was heralded as a wonder fighter when it first appeared in 1939, faster than anything else in the sky, very manoeuvrable and with good firepower. It transpired that the design had some inherent weaknesses that were never fully overcome. The most serious was tail buffeting in high speed dives which led to restrictions that were a handicap in combat. Due to the peculiarities of the design aerodynamics, at very high speeds air flow over the cockpit and wing centre section became turbulent and hammered round the tailplane linking the two fuselage booms. Lockheed and the Air Force tried in vain to cure this: they never succeeded as far as I know.
A large plane for a fighter, the P-38 could turn as well as most single-engine interceptors at low altitudes and it had good speed. In the Pacific our people developed a successful technique of employing it against Japanese fighters with great success. It was popular there by virtue of its range being superior to other American pursuits available during the early war years and, with plenty of over-water flying, two engines were a comfort. The same should have applied in Europe but the operational circumstances and climatic conditions were different. Here the P-38 was a big flop, although the Air Force would never admit it as they believed their own propaganda.
The Allison engines were the main trouble. At low and medium altitudes they were fine, at high altitude they were hopeless. The design just couldn’t take the combination of extreme cold and high humidity that characterized flight over Europe, especially in winter. Engine failure had been rife during the winter of 1943-44 when the P-38s really began to see action. The position had improved, but they still were not 100 per cent. There was a standing joke that the P-38 was designed with two engines so you could come back on one. A P-38 mechanic’s life was not easy, the type demanded a hefty maintenance load.
There were several good points about the type. Without doubt it was an excellent gun platform. All five guns - four 50s and a 20 mm cannon - were in the nose compartment ahead of the pilot. This made the estimation of range much less critical as, unlike the P-47 and P-51 with their wing mounted guns, the fire didn’t converge.
[On August 25, 1944 the 479th flew a mission “way out near the Baltic coast.” At pages 196-197:]
On the same mission I experienced one of the P-38's known problems. We had just arrived above the B-24s we were to support when a small gaggle of Me 109s was seen below. Pressing the R/T button and giving my flight the order to follow me, an abrupt roll into a dive was made and as the speed built up the throttles retarded so as not to exceed the given dive limitations for the aircraft. To my astonishment both engines cut out. Thrusting the throttles open brought them to life again only to produce engine over-speeding. As I wrestled with the power settings the revolutions on one and then the other engine fluctuated wildly. All consideration of engaging the enemy in combat was given up as attempts were made to master the bucking Lightning. It took a great deal of sky and a much lower and warmer altitude to effect stability. What had happened was that the oil in the hydraulically controlled turbo-supercharger regulators had jellified in the low temperatures, the sluggish operation leading to imbalance. A not uncommon happening with P-38s in high-altitude operations over Europe. I wasn’t the only member of my group to fly home streaming blue smoke that day - the air was blue inside my cockpit too.
[About a week later the 479th began transitioning to P-51s.]
-
The P38 was a miserable failure as a fighter and basically just fodder for the FWs. In ah thats a different story ask alt-alt he is a P38 cartoon hero.
-
Originally posted by storch
The P38 was a miserable failure as a fighter and basically just fodder for the FWs. In ah thats a different story ask alt-alt he is a P38 cartoon hero.
Could you at least do a little research before you make a stupid remark like that Storch?
I think we've established that the 38 struggled with the 8th AF in the high alt escort role. That doesn't mean it was a miserable failure fighting the LW.
the 9th AF flying 38s in ground attack seemed to do fine. The MTO groups fighting the Luftwaffe seemed to do fine as well.
82nd FG had 544 air to air kills in WW2
1st FG had 440 air to air kills
Those are comparable numbers to any of the other leading fighter groups flying 51s or Jugs.
The 4th FG, for example, flying Spits, Jugs and 51s had 583 air to air kills and they were flying sweeps, escorts etc. The MTO 38s flew a lot more ground support stuff, yet they're numbers are comparable to the top 8th Groups.
Along with the 14th FG 38 pilots the MTO 38s, fighting the LW turned out 57 "aces'. Hardly FW fodder. And these guys were fighting more experienced LW pilots in late 42-43
-
I've read Zemke's Wolfpack, and those are excellent excerpts.
As I recall (I read it over 10 years ago, but it is still sitting on my shelf next to Galland) Zemke was a little dissapointed about leaving the P47 for anything, and wasn't particularly thrilled to take up the P51 either. I seem to remember him lamenting having to leave the Jug, and claiming that a P47 would not have gone down on him, leading to his capture.
The discussion of applications in theaters is most pertinent. The P38, vs. later German aircraft, just didn't accell in the right areas to make it supreme in the ETO. It did have good success in reconnaisance and other roles, but couldn't escort as well as mustangs and couldn't withstand groundfire like the jugs. Note the above admission that most of the 35 losses were to ground fire. I experience this in game as well.
Vs. Japanese aircraft the P38 had it better off, still retaining a speed advantage over most of them as well as better dive characteristics. The range and twin engine factors were especially important there too.
While the overspeed buffetting could probably never have been completely solved, it's too bad they never fixed some of the other problems with the design. The engines could have been fixed or replaced. The propeller governors, possibly the biggest falling point of the design (lockheed manuals scream about watching for engine over rev, especially on takeoff or after quick throttle advancement) are something that we don't really have to worry about in game. The above account of the oil jellifying also includes this malefunction.
Even if Galland hadn't actually flown against the P38 in combat, he would have had a good sense of its capabilities from his other pilots who were up there. The truth is that the P38 is relatively easy to fight if you know how to force it against it's weaknesses. A good 38 driver won't let this happen, but the quality of allied airman (overall that is) at the time was probably not the same high standard that it was at the end of the war. Many pilots were new in theater, their units just having been transferred, or they were replacement pilots fresh out of training. Let's not forget that they didn't have Soda's aircraft evaluations to look at beforehand.
And, as a couple people mentioned, not much was a fair match for Galland and his elite JGs. Not untill Allied airman gained more experience and the good Experten started to dwindle. (Is there a lobsterrun scenario? that would be cool) The p38 probably would have had the most limited of options for escape/evasion, and would have allowed the German Experten to corner it more easily if the pilot weren't on his toes.
Whew, I love history! :cool:
-
The Germans never called the P-38 "Der Gabelschwanz Teufel" - The Forked Tailed Devil.
Interesting stories in this one, thanks. :)
-
A quick look at the tally shows the P-38 was able to maintain a 6:1 K/D ratio against the Luftwaffe. There were far too many P-38 pilots who scored plenty of victories against well trained German pilots with plenty of experience for anyone to honestly say the P-38 was inferior in any sense. Lowell, Olds, Ilfrey, Morris, Graham, Blumer, and a host of others. In fact, Blumer likely killed a top German ace in 1944, along with four more from his JG in the same day, and his unit mauled a top German JG so bad it was pulled out of action. So unless you want to say that several German aces and a couple of top German JG's got their tulips whipped by a bunch of young green pilots in a second class ride, you can drop the B.S. about the P-38 not being a first class ride. It just ain't true.
-
Zemke was no doubt a great pilot, one of the best ever. But he was hardly an expert on the P-38. The fact that he allowed his oil temperature to get so low as to congeal the oil in the turbo regulators shows he just plain didn't know his ride very well. It is just that simple. He failed to properly manage his engine operating parameters, and blamed it on the plane as opposed to his lack of knowledge about the plane. Once again, it shows that a pilot who decides he doesn't like a plane, before he ever flies it, and never learns to fly it right, will not succeed in that plane. Had Zemke been flying his plane with the proper settings for manifold pressure, mixture, RPM, oil cooler and radiator doors, it would have responded just fine. Like any other plane, to succeed in the P-38, you had to WANT to fly it, and you had to LEARN to fly it.
-
The MTO groups fighting the Luftwaffe seemed to do fine as well.
82nd FG had 544 air to air kills in WW2
I am not sure why this gets repeated as evidence of the P-38s viability as a fighter or fighter-bomber. For one there are huge wholes in the historic record for the 82nd (and other Ami FG as well) while in North Africa.
A respected author on another forum has went into great lengths researching the claims of Kurt 'Bühlmann' Bühligen while attached to JG 2 in Tunisia. Bühligen claimed some 40 abschuß during this time and has a total of 112 claims confirmed in total, 13 of these were P-38s. Reconstructing these P-38s claims has been impossible due to the lack of detailed, authoritative, historical documentation. However, it seems that the majority of the claims were possible rather then just made-up. Narrowing down the specifics is still underway.
In Fighters over Tunisia by Shores, Ring and Hess there's is mention of the Ami's 'poor record keeping' on top of the current gaps. According to Shores he claims it may have been possible that losses and damage may have gone unrecorded on the days that they happened. As such trying to re-construct an accurate time line is difficult and open to interpretation.
Some will take the easy route and claim that Bühligen must have over claimed. That maybe so, but there are huge gaps in the historic record. P-38 claims by both JG2s Fw's and JG27s Messer's in North Africa hardly show that the P-38 was was anything more then 'adequate'. Certainly it was better then the P-40s and P-39s. I know, what about the fighter-bomber sorties? These are even harder to quantify then air-to-air kills.
The P-38s is fine aircraft and it did well against the obsolete Japanese aircraft. There are occasions were it acquitted itself in outstanding fashion against the Luftwaffe. However, compared to what else the allies had in their arsenal, both in terms of fighters and fighter-bombers, the P-38 was little more then 'adequate'. Even in the Pacific there were 'better' aircraft.
How the P-38s and other aircraft are operated in this game have little bearing as to how well they were successfully operated in real life. I don't wish to get into another romp with the 'P-38 mafia' but if any one looks beyond just what the fan bois post (including myself) and keeps an objective mind as much as possible you may find your own 'acceptable' version of the truth.
FYI Panzer is correct no Luftwaffe airman I have read uses the the term 'Der Gabelschwanz Teufel' when describing the P-38.
-
You guys have convinced me. This is the best plane of the war:
(http://webpages.charter.net/wbarritt/Hellcat2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by storch
The P38 was a miserable failure as a fighter and basically just fodder for the FWs. In ah thats a different story ask alt-alt he is a P38 cartoon hero.
Yawn...
ack-ack
-
The P-38 'tally' consists of nothing more then 'claims'. I am unaware of any study that attempts to match those claims against actual losses. Claims whether they are 'confirmed' or not should be viewed in the correct context.
The Top 5 Luftwaffe P-38 killers claimed:
Schieß claimed 17
Bartels - 14
Bühligen - 13
Puschmann - 9
Kientsch - 9
Only one of those pilots, Schieß, was reported to have been lost due to P-38s
That's a k/d of 62 to 1...
-
Bruno, for about the thousandth time, just the guys I mentioned had CONFIRMED kills, no over claims in their official tally. And when Blumer got his 5 in 15 minutes, there was nothing there but Luftwaffe and P-38's, and one of the top Luftwaffe aces in that area, I think it was Rudy Dassau, was shot down that day, and it is likely that Blumer himself got Dassau.
The B.S. that U.S. confirmed claims (as compared to the higher claims like Lowell's supposed 16 or so) are even remotely more likely to be over claims than the Luftwaffe claims are is just that, B.S. Enough said.
-
You mean the 'top Luftwaffe ace' Rudolf Dassow of JG 6...?
Top Luftwaffe Squadron JG6 lol...
You so clueless it's not even funny. Jagdgeschwader 6 was made up of converted 110 and bomber pilots. They weren't 'top anything'. Dassow himself wasn't a top 'Luftwaffe ace either'. He flew with ZG 1 and ZG 76 (Zerstörer) flying 110s before being rushed into single engine fighters. His 22 kills claims were all while flying the 110.
However, there's no evidence that he was shot down by ole 'Scrappy. There's a book due out soon that will cover extensively Jagdgeschwader 6.
The B.S. that U.S. confirmed claims (as compared to the higher claims like Lowell's supposed 16 or so) are even remotely more likely to be over claims than the Luftwaffe claims are is just that, B.S. Enough said.
I never said one set of claims is more credible then the other. I said that there has never been any study to match claims with losses. I have posted in numerous threads about the reliability of claims on all sides. Do a search.
I agree enough is enough. You P-38 fan bois are so desperate to show how good the P-38 was that you create 'top Luftwaffe aces' and 'top Luftwaffe geschwader' out of thin air.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Yawn...
ack-ack
oh look!!! alt-alt has put down the chorizo and typed another heroic message to me!!! thanks alt-alt.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
You P-38 fan bois are so desperate to show how good the P-38 was that you create 'top Luftwaffe aces' and 'top Luftwaffe geschwader' out of thin air.
Actually I miss the old days whene everyone thought the P38 was a peice of junk. Oh how surprised they were to find me turning with them:)
-
Originally posted by Bruno
I never said one set of claims is more credible then the other. I said that there has never been any study to match claims with losses. I have posted in numerous threads about the reliability of claims on all sides. Do a search.
I agree enough is enough. You P-38 fan bois are so desperate to show how good the P-38 was that you create 'top Luftwaffe aces' and 'top Luftwaffe geschwader' out of thin air.
Bruno, my response was to Storch's comment. My point was the 38 aquitted itself well enough against the LW. Was it the top performer? No. But it was hardly FW fodder.
The 'fan bois' comments get old in a hurry too. Somehow that's meant to discredit any commentary?
Does that make you a LW 'fan bois"?
I tend to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to commentary on the Luftwaffe and their aircraft. You've clearly done your research. I'd like to think that my interest and research into the Allied stuff would recieve that same sort of consideration.
As for using the term kills vs claims. I'm guilty. But they totals are the 'comfirmed' kills that the groups were credited with. We can go on all day about claims, overclaiming etc. My point was their kill tally (real or imagined) was comparable to any other fighter groups in the ETO/MTO
-
Bruno, my response was to Storch's comment. My point was the 38 aquitted itself well enough against the LW. Was it the top performer? No. But it was hardly FW fodder.
Ok then we agree, I guess...
The 'fan bois' comments get old in a hurry too. Somehow that's meant to discredit any commentary?
I included myself in that:
I don't wish to get into another romp with the 'P-38 mafia' but if any one looks beyond just what the fan bois post (including myself) and keeps an objective mind as much as possible you may find your own 'acceptable' version of the truth.
But you can't deny that whenever anything is pointed out contrary to the view that the 'P-38 teh RoXXoR' the P-38 mafioso turn up with exaggerations at best, if not down right lies, just to show us just how great it was.
What do we have in this thread? A bunch of cherry picked, out of context, quotes, lies (see Lowell) and the Capt'n's exaggeration over who and what a 'top Luftwaffe ace is'. It's mostly nonsense...
As I said above the P-38 was fine aircraft. However, it wasn't 'great' by any stretch. No other country could have afforded the resources and man power to produce such an 'adequate' aircraft such as the US did with the P-38.
-
Well, 22 victories in a 110 is nothing to sneeze at. I'll give the guy plenty of credit, even if you won't.
It isn't that the P-38 fans expect or demand that everyone agree that the P-38 was the ultimate fighter, that isn't it at all. It's that P-38 fans simply aren't going to agree with anyone who claims the P-38 was a "second rate also ran". It wasn't. And to even attempt to say that it was is to give great discredit to any of the Axis pilots who fell in front of the guns of a P-38.
No exagerration is necessary. The OFFICIAL credits that P-38 pilots scored is more than testament enough to the capability of the plane. Forget the extra claims for Lowell, or anyone else for that matter. What they got officially credited with is more than enough to show the P-38 was an excellent plane when in capable hands.
The fact is, the P-38 was better than average, and better than simply adequate. It handled every task assigned to it well when flown by capable pilots. It was a good fighter, a good ground attack plane, a good fighter/bomber, a good escort fighter, a good interceptor, and even a good recon plane. Was it the very best at any of those tasks? Maybe, it was, maybe it wasn't, probably not. But it was more than capable, and it acquitted itself quite well facing ANY piston engine prop driven plane any of the enemy could put up against it. Not bad for a plane designed in 1937, especially considering it was never designed for most tasks it was assigned, actual development ceased in 1943 for the most part, not to mention fixes were available for most of the perceived faults but never installed, and the best prototype (the P-38K in April 1943) never saw production.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
But you can't deny that whenever anything is pointed out contrary to the view that the 'P-38 teh RoXXoR' the P-38 mafioso turn up with exaggerations at best, if not down right lies, just to show us just how great it was.
I suppose in that regards the 38 fans are a bit like their historical counterparts. It's been interesting in the histories to read the reactions by the guys trained in 38s to transitioning to 51s. On the whole, they preferred the 38 to the 51 "spam can".
Obviously the guys that were statside trained in 51s that had to transition to 38s saw it differently. They by far preferred the 51.
I guess that bias is based on the belief in the plane and the training they had in it to get the best out of it.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
[..]
The fact is, the P-38 was better than average, and better than simply adequate. It handled every task assigned to it well when flown by capable pilots.
[..]
But it was more than capable, and it acquitted itself quite well facing ANY piston engine prop driven plane any of the enemy could put up against it. Not bad for a plane designed in 1937, especially considering it was never designed for most tasks it was assigned [..]
I think your argument just reinforced the assessment of the P-38 being an 'adequate' fighter, the keywords being "when flown by capable pilots". Replace the word "P-38" in your text with Me-109 and voila, you can use it everytime someone writes about the drawbacks of the Messerschmitt.
When you are fighting a strategic war, individual skill and kill #s are good for propaganda shows, the outcome of the war, however, is not related to individuals - as demonstrated by the insane numbers the top LW pilots got (in arguably obsolete 109s) and still lost the war.
The top american ace flew P-38s so it must've been 'good enough' for the job in his hands but in a strategic sense, the P-38 was not the best. Here's why:
P-51 $50,985
P-47 $83,000
P-38 $134,284
a plane with less than half the production cost and roughly the same performance is simply the better strategic fighter.
Add up the fact that using your own words you need 'capable pilots' the P-38 goes further down on the list.
I'm a fanboi of the 38 but i dont see why anyone can argue the fact that the P38 in the sum of all traits is only an average fighter.
-
does it smell like fish in here?
-
I think what the Storchter and the other Luftwaffe guys fail to realize is that compared to a 109, or 190, the 38 isn't going to win any maneaverability contests, it will out vertical just about any plane in WW2, and out accelerate and out dive. The main reason for succes of the 38 in WW2 and AH for that matter is tactics and trying to keep numbers up during a fight, wingman tactics saved a lot of 38's. That is more the reason for the succes of the 38's 6\1 kill ratio over the luftwaffe. The 38's would fly high, dive on some poor sap, blow him to pieces, and repeat ad naseum untill the german was dead, usually while being covered by other 38's watching. I believe the 38 would outturn the 190 accelerate and out vert it, about the only thing it's got is roll rate. If the 109 is BnZ, or E fought by a 38 it is a hapless target, however on the same side if the 38 gets low and slow, the 38 ends up the 109's lunch, there's not much you can do. Therefore it takes a much smarter 38 pilot to kill and live, you "have to know when to hold em, know when to fold em" in that plane" when flown that way it's untouchable.
-
in the ETO the P38 was a dismal failure. the P38 was successful in the pacific simply because it was fighting frail japanese aircraft and the US held a huge numerical advantage over the japanese not because the P38 was anything even marginally approaching "good". in it's intended role as a high altitude interceptor it was mediocre, as a medium altitude fighter it was mediocre, as an attack platform it was ok. the P38 was so substandard that inspite of being the costliest fighter to produce they were immediately junked after the war. they probably even made poor skillets after the materials were recycled. The best American fighter was clearly the P51 followed closely by the F6F and the F4U. The P38 was an innovative design and must have looked futuristic in 1939 but in reality it was mostly show but no go.
-
But...
P38 has good range.
P38 carries a lot of ordnance.
P38 has decent firepower
P38 has 2 engines and can fly one only 1.
P38 is quite fast for a twin.
P38 is quite nimble for a twin.
It's a tool for the attacker, and did well so.
-
Ohhhhh this is fun :
Top Allied fighters: (drum roll please)
1. P-51 Mustang
2. F-4u Corsair
3. P-38 Lightning
4. P-47 Thunderbolt
5. F6f Hellcat
Top German fighters:
1. Me-109
2. Fw-190
3. A6m-Zero
4. Nikj-2
5. ki-84
-
I presume you mean top USA fighters there.
Allies also include Britain and the USSR, as well as Poland untill 1939, and the Lowlands and France until 1940, - all aircraft builders.
And I presume you mean AXIS fighters, not German. Axis are mainly Germany, Italy and Japan, as well as some others who built aircraft - notably Romania. Last time I checked the Zeke, N1K2 and Ki84 were Japanese.
Btw, wonder which allied fighter shot down most 109's. My money is on the Spitfire.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Btw, wonder which allied fighter shot down most 109's. My money is on the Spitfire.
Mine is on the 47.
- jkw
-
I would guess that since the spit had a three+ year lead on all fighters American and that they were involved in the fight when the luftwaffe could actually field numbers there is good probability the english fighters would be responsible for the lion's share of 109 kills. keep in mind though that the russians miraculously managed to knock down a good number of 109s as well.
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
I think your argument just reinforced the assessment of the P-38 being an 'adequate' fighter, the keywords being "when flown by capable pilots". Replace the word "P-38" in your text with Me-109 and voila, you can use it everytime someone writes about the drawbacks of the Messerschmitt.
When you are fighting a strategic war, individual skill and kill #s are good for propaganda shows, the outcome of the war, however, is not related to individuals - as demonstrated by the insane numbers the top LW pilots got (in arguably obsolete 109s) and still lost the war.
The top american ace flew P-38s so it must've been 'good enough' for the job in his hands but in a strategic sense, the P-38 was not the best. Here's why:
P-51 $50,985
P-47 $83,000
P-38 $134,284
a plane with less than half the production cost and roughly the same performance is simply the better strategic fighter.
Add up the fact that using your own words you need 'capable pilots' the P-38 goes further down on the list.
I'm a fanboi of the 38 but i dont see why anyone can argue the fact that the P38 in the sum of all traits is only an average fighter.
The pilots I listed earlier were exceptional pilots. A capable pilot is one who is TRAINED to fly the P-38, PROPERLY trained. Not the replacements the P-38 groups in the 8th got, who were single engine pilots trained to fly the P-47 or the P-51. The segment from Zemke's book was an EXCELLENT example. The result of Zemke in a P-38, especially as a leader, were exactly what you'd expect from putting a good P-47 pilot in a P-38, a plane he disliked and knew little about before he went into combat in it. Zemke in the P-38 was a total failure. The RIGHT thing to do there would have been to put Jack Ilfrey or Robin Olds in that P-38. You would have had a pilot who not only like the plane, but knew how to fly it, and even more critical, had the knowledge and confidence to teach his men to fly it. No, you misunderstood "capable pilot". Capable pilot is more along the lines of Stan Richardson or Art Heiden, or Richard Loenhert, a pilot properly trained to fly the P-38, who knew and liked the plane and could hold his own. It didn't need to be an ace like Olds or Ilfrey, just a properly trained pilot actually fully qualified in the P-38, as compared to a single engine pilot with a 5 minute cockpit orientation session and a 15 minute familiarity flight, who know nothing of how to fly the P-38 or manage the engines, who had never even really read the pilots manual.
That segment of Zemke's book is EXACTLY why the 8th AF was deep in trouble for a long time, extremely poor management and leadership. The truth is, both the P-38 and the P-47 were used as scapegoats for the failures brought on by poor management in the 8th AF. First, the 8th AF decided they didn't need escorts with range, so they sent the P-38 to the Med and North Africa. Then they blamed the lack of range of the P-47 for the lack of fighter escorts for the bombers. Despite the fact they sent the planes with the greatest range out of the theater, and never bothered to push development of the drop tanks on the P-47s. Then, when the bombers were blasted out of the sky, they brought two green P-38 units from the states, rushed them to operational status before they were ready, and sent them on deep penetration raids with 1/3 as many planes as they needed and no experience, forcing them to stick with the bombers, and fly the entire mission alone. So then, when they had too few P-38's with nothing but green pilots, it was the P-38's fault, shifting the B.S. scapegoat status from the P-47 to the P-38. They never bothered to get FOUR P-38 groups operational and some experienced pilots and commanders for those groups. They had the capability, the pilots were there, and the planes could have been. Even when the first P-51 groups arrived it wasn't much better. But Doolittle changed fighter tactics completely, and they got some range for the P-47. Suddenly you have a lot of planes and new tactics, then it all worked so they didn't need a third scapegoat, otherwise it would have been the fault of the P-51. The truth is, the P-51 didn't save the day, Doolittle did. By gathering enough planes and pilots to do the job that needed doing, and applying the tactics that needed to be applied. Any of the three fighters the U.S. had could have done the job, given what they were given in 1944.
If cost is the measure, then the F-15 is a failure and the F-16 is dramaticaly superior. And everyone knows that isn't true.
-
Just to discuss this a little further, let's look at Zemke's problems again:
On the same mission I experienced one of the P-38's known problems. We had just arrived above the B-24s we were to support when a small gaggle of Me 109s was seen below. Pressing the R/T button and giving my flight the order to follow me, an abrupt roll into a dive was made and as the speed built up the throttles retarded so as not to exceed the given dive limitations for the aircraft. To my astonishment both engines cut out. Thrusting the throttles open brought them to life again only to produce engine over-speeding. As I wrestled with the power settings the revolutions on one and then the other engine fluctuated wildly. All consideration of engaging the enemy in combat was given up as attempts were made to master the bucking Lightning. It took a great deal of sky and a much lower and warmer altitude to effect stability. What had happened was that the oil in the hydraulically controlled turbo-supercharger regulators had jellified in the low temperatures, the sluggish operation leading to imbalance. A not uncommon happening with P-38s in high-altitude operations over Europe. I wasn’t the only member of my group to fly home streaming blue smoke that day - the air was blue inside my cockpit too.
Now, let's give Zemke full credit for being a great P-47 pilot, trained and experienced in his plane of choice. An ace, several times over.
Now lets look at an average capable P-38 pilot, Richard Loenhert (Loenhert's plane is the green P-38J that Airmess did, called "California Cutie"), he was not an ace, and ended up with around 3-4 kills. However, Loenhert flew over 300 hours on ONE set of engines in a P-38J in HEAVY combat, survived combat, and shot down enemy planes, with the "less than stellar" P-38. Why? Because Loenhert knew how to fly a P-38, and what power settings to use. He knew that low RPM and relatively high boost kept his operating temperature safely high, and all he had to do to get full power was to run his RPM up and THEN go full throttle. He knew to keep his oil temperature in the proper range, and how to do it, by setting his oil cooler doors. He knew where to set his radiator doors. That is all BASIC pilot skills. Part of learning to fly, not part of being an ace. In general civil aviation they teach you to know your plane and its systems and know how to properly operate them. and when you don't properly manage those systems and have any sort of incident, they call it PILOT ERROR.
So we have Zemke, a great and well known ace, a great pilot by most any standard. Can't get anything out of a P-38 because BEFORE he ever flew it, he made up his mind it wasn't a good plane, and he never learned to properly manage the plane. Then we have Loenhert (or you can swap out Loenhert and put in Richardson, or Heiden, or a dozen other P-38 pilots I know), who was never an ace, or well known. But Loenhert not only doesn't blow the P-38 up or get in trouble, but flies it trouble free and gets victories. Why? Because Loenhert was properly trained to be a P-38 pilot. That is why I say all you need is a capable pilot, a man properly trained to fly a P-38.
That tells you why the 8th AF in general, and the fighter wing in particular, was in the shape it was in. There were some really stupid people who thought all you did was stick anyone who could fly in any plane and send him up. Worse than that, they were in command, giving orders, and deciding on tactics and missions. Qualified P-38 pilots were going to P-51 and P-47 units, and vice versa. Just plain dumb.
-
Not going to get too deep into this, but I will summarize a few points and then run for my water filled slit trench...
As usual there are two sides that are going a bit overboard in either praise or condemnation of the P-38 as a fighter, and its history, imho.
*Pacific service. It didnt outnumber the Japanese in any great way in 1942-43, and Japanese fighters were flown by experienced pilots in a/c that were capable. Ki-61, A6M5, ect. It also shot down many bomber and recce a/c and served very well, imho. You cant on one hand praise the F6F and F4U but then say the P-38 wasnt all that because it fought the Japanese.
*ETO service. It went to the Med because of Operation Torch (The US Invasion of Africa) and was needed there in 1942. 8th AF Bomber Command didnt seem to mind, because they were still pusuing a policy of long range bombing without escorts.
*There was no P-51 or P-47 in 1942, in either the Med or Pacific. There were USAAC P-40s and P-39s. Neither type was deemed as a top tier design, and the P-38 was seen as the best US type of that time.
*It served untill wars end in front line units, unlike the P-40 and P-39. If it was some sort of death trap, it would not have.
*It was more expensive, and harder to master than the P-51 and P-47, it did go through its share of development troubles. It did had a few characteristics, like compressibility, that were unfavorable.
Anyways, to me there is more to the history side of it than just cheerleading, I think it certainly had an interesting and varied career, and has to be remembered as one of the cornerstone US types especially in the first 2 years of the war.
-
Squire :
:aok
-
Well, 22 victories in a 110 is nothing to sneeze at. I'll give the guy plenty of credit, even if you won't.
No its not, in fact that is better then 99% of all P-38 pilots. No one would claim the '110 was an 'above average aircraft'. In fact in was far less then 'adequate' especially as the war progressed. However, Dassow wasn't a 'fighter-pilot'. His training and experience in a twin engine 'Zerstörer' was wholly inadequate for combat in a single engine fighter.
Much has been written about bomber pilots and 110 pilots being converted to to fly single engine day-fighters. Off the top of my head in Norbert Hannig's book he talks about the difficulty in training bomber pilots to be fighter pilots. He mentions that they were technically excellent pilots able to navigate and fly in the tightest formation and able to coordinate their maneuvers etc...
IIRC at least one had Oak Leaves and the other 2 Iron Cross 1st class with 100s of combat sorties. However, Hannig states they were terrible 'fighter pilots'. All the habits of flying multi-engine aircraft could not be undone. Hannig explains to them that he doesn't think that would survive one sortie in air combat and to prove it he challenges them. The bomber pilot with Oak Leaves accepts and Hannig let's him pick the best Fw on the base. Hannig takes one that is a worn out trainer. Hannig tells him to climb to 3000 meters and if Hannig isn't locked on his tail within a few minutes then he just might have a chance surviving their first combat. Keeping it short, Hannig pwns him. They repeat it three times.
Hannig states that fresh recruits with no experience were easier to train. IIRC the 3 bomber pilots that Hannig was training thanked him and dropped returning to their bombers. The same thing can be read abou tin describing bomber pilots flying 262s.
Dassow's claim total may be impressive (and it certainly is) but he wasn't a fighter pilot and neither was most of Jagdgeschwader 6. Its you who threw out the phrases like: 'top Luftwaffe ace' and 'top Luftwaffe squadron'. I am just contrasting your exaggerations with the facts.
The OFFICIAL credits that P-38 pilots scored is more than testament enough to the capability of the plane. Forget the extra claims for Lowell, or anyone else for that matter. What they got officially credited with is more than enough to show the P-38 was an excellent plane when in capable hands.
Official credit does not mean 'set in stone'. As I said until there is a study that attempts to match claims with actual losses lets not pretend 'official credit' is the final word. If so hundred's of historians and authors are just wasting their time. Let's not pretend that you claim of '6 to 1' means anything as well. If you have ever done any research into claims and losses you would know how difficult it is matching up the data. As I said said in another thread it doesn't matter if one pilot claimed 20 and only got 15 in how his service is viewed. These things only matter to us 'geeks'. When you speak in absolutes and with your tendency to exaggerate this where the argument develops.
I don't care anything about Lowell's claims verses his 'stories'. Lowell is irrelevant to the discussion we are having.
The fact is, the P-38 was better than average, and better than simply adequate. It handled every task assigned to it well when flown by capable pilots. It was a good fighter, a good ground attack plane, a good fighter/bomber, a good escort fighter, a good interceptor, and even a good recon plane. Was it the very best at any of those tasks?
What do you define as the 'average'? Let's look at the USAAF's 3 main fighter types in the west: P-47, P-51 and P-38. Which one of those represents the average? Both the P-51 and P-47 were better then the P-38 in all the rolls you listed.
Do the same in the Pacific. Which US fighter (including the USN) represents the 'average'. The F6F by its combat record alone would be considered near the top. What about the F4U? Reportedly, the most feared aircraft by the Japanese. Again the P-38 was adequate but in no way superior to the other quality aircraft available to the US.
As Leitwolf articulated in fine fashion and as I have stated the P-38 was adequate. I am not sure why some one takes offense at this, after all it re-enforces the the idea that the top P-38 pilots were well above average, doesn't it?
Not bad for a plane designed in 1937,
This is some how unique to the P-38? When was the Spitfire design laid out, or the 109?
Dan
I guess that bias is based on the belief in the plane and the training they had in it to get the best out of it.
Sure, we all can understand the pilot who trained and fought in a particular aircraft having a love for it. For most us we can accept that for what it is. The true 'fanboi' is the one who takes every word that claims the greatness of their preferred ride as gospel and anything that doesn't uphold that is dismissed as heresy.
Look at the Capt'n.
'Zemke doesn't know anything...'
'...the 8th AF command were nothing but ill informed P-38 haters...'
When ever anything fails to uphold the image of the P-38s greatness he chimes in with why they are all wrong. We have seen this in others and when they have been LW folks they were dismissed out of hand or at worst called 'nazi lovers'.
Squire,
I think it certainly had an interesting and varied career, and has to be remembered as one of the cornerstone US types especially in the first 2 years of the war.
Sure it did. The question is whether or not is was 'above average' or whether it was adequate for the the time being. If it performed so well at all the tasks the Capt'n outlined then why were other aircraft being pursued to replace it.
It held its own, it had its 'time in the sun' but ultimately there were better aircraft in the US arsenal, not just in terms of performance and versatility but that were cheaper and less difficult to produce. Not to mention easier to train new pilots on.
-
The P38 ranks as a mid-war aircraft right?
In the Pacific theater it is there at the time of P40's, P39's, and F4F's. The enemy is at best the A6m2 and A6m3, later the A6M5 etc.
Well, the first P38 is the P38F. It was already capable of very much more than the others, - thinking of the role. Range, ordnance, speed, firepower. And over the vast areas of the Pacific, - a twin who can maintain altitude on one engine.
(Also, - I once "heard" that A6m's chasing the P38 at top speed would have to live with the P38 pulling away while also climbing 1500 feet more, - but I never found the backup. Could fit roughly though at at least some altitudes :D)
In the ETO it is the first allied aircraft to be able to go "deep" into enemy territory, and as well, AFAIK the first "properly" performing U.S. fighter.
On ground attacks and deep penetration missions the twin engine factor is also important.
But, - it has to tangle Axis fighters this time that are on pair or even better, - 190's, 109's, C202's, -air to air.
Yet, - in the fall of 1942, give me a better offensive long-range/cross water strike/fighter aircraft, - in the world.
It's the role. It's a tool.
-
I dont think the 38s were doing too much JaBo stuff unitl later on.
Maybe I'm wrong, but i never remember reading about Lightning Fighterbombers until around the time of the Sicily invasion...
-
Originally posted by Debonair
I dont think the 38s were doing too much JaBo stuff unitl later on.
Maybe I'm wrong, but i never remember reading about Lightning Fighterbombers until around the time of the Sicily invasion...
Looks like the 1st FG was training in their spare time to dive bomb starting in April-May 43 and dropped bombs first in June of 43.
39th FS in the Pacific was lugging bombs in their early 38s in November 42, Bob Farout, getting his well known Zero kill with a bomb at the end of November 42.
edited to add that the 82nd FG in the MTO flew their first dive-bombing mission April 14, 1943.
One more edit. Looks like 54th FS flying 38Es and Fs in the Aleutians was doing ground attack and dive bombing February-March 1943 to start.
Image is of a 1st FG 38G and 500 pounder in June of 43
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1152827005_38db.jpg)
-
Thats all new to me.
Thanks:O
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Image is of a 1st FG 38G and 500 pounder in June of 43
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1152827005_38db.jpg)
Are those kill markings for 2 German and 3 Italian planes painted on the nose? Not bad for an inferior aircraft...or maybe he just ran across 5 inferior Axis pilots.
ack-ack
-
good point alt-alt, maybe he was loafing around at 107k with his dimly lit pals dropping in on guys eating a 7 course meal while on line. :aok
-
not sure what the two other odd markings are. Could be Italian, but I see at least 5 swastikas on that nose. Also, looks like 10 completed bombing missions, unless those are for targets destroyed.
-
oh yeah, not to open up a debate on smoking, but I really wouldn't reccomend it when you're rolling around a 1000lb bomb!
:O
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
not sure what the two other odd markings are. Could be Italian, but I see at least 5 swastikas on that nose. Also, looks like 10 completed bombing missions, unless those are for targets destroyed.
I agree that there appear to be two swastikas, two wheel barrows, and three more swastikas. No idea what the wheelbarrows signify. I agree that it appears those bombs are markings to denote bombing missions.
-
wheel barrows
possibly means gardening operations
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
wheel barrows
possibly means gardening operations
Cool. Show me any other plane that was capable of gardening.:D
-
One more edit. Looks like 54th FS flying 38Es and Fs in the Aleutians was doing ground attack and dive bombing February-March 1943 to start.
Well if they're in Alaska, what are they doing shooting down axis aircraft?
That's probably somewhere in the ETO.
Oh, and training doesn't mean they used them that way. You train folks to dive bomb. Doesn't mean they always do it. Just means they know how :)
(I have to mention that, I'm playing devil's advocate!)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Cool. Show me any other plane that was capable of gardening.:D
Gardening is mine laying missions. I will let you Google to find what a/c were capable of such missions.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Well if they're in Alaska, what are they doing shooting down axis aircraft?
That's probably somewhere in the ETO.
Oh, and training doesn't mean they used them that way. You train folks to dive bomb. Doesn't mean they always do it. Just means they know how :)
(I have to mention that, I'm playing devil's advocate!)
Uh Krusty, are you COMPLETELY unaware of the fact that Japan, part of the Axis, invaded the Aleutians (island chain, part of Alaska) during World War II and HEAVY combat operations ensued, including serious air to air and air to ground action. If you are completely oblivious to that, please, look it up.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Gardening is mine laying missions. I will let you Google to find what a/c were capable of such missions.
LOL, it was a joke.;)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Well if they're in Alaska, what are they doing shooting down axis aircraft?
That's probably somewhere in the ETO.
Oh, and training doesn't mean they used them that way. You train folks to dive bomb. Doesn't mean they always do it. Just means they know how :)
(I have to mention that, I'm playing devil's advocate!)
Go back and read it again Krusty. Sometimes I think you just like to be contrary :)
54th FS in 38Es and later F and Gs flew in some of the worst weather anywhere. Interestingly in their official history and the stuff written since they didn't complain about the cold in their 38s and they managed to fly combat in them and these were the early birds. They hadn't gotten the memo about how bad the 38 was. First 38 kills of the war were August 4, 1942 when two Mavis flying boats were shot down by two 54th FS 38s.
These guys did all kinds of things in that lousy weather. In 42 they took 38Es and tested range and found they could stay up for 11 hours. At the same time in the ETO the bombers weren't getting escorted and the 38s that could have at least provided some help were sent to North Africa.
4 54th FS pilots, out of boredom, more then anything else, on a mission where they were supposed to escort Navy bombers, 'failed to find them', and instead flew down and strafed Japanese targets on the Kurile Islands which are part of the Japanese home islands. Because it wasn't an 'official' approved mission, it never made the records but the 4 pilots, including the one who came back single engine, sure remember it.
Just to clarify Krusty. The Pac 38s first dive bombed in November 42, the MTO 38s in April 43 and the Aleutian 38s in February 43. If you want images of 38s with the bomb symbols on em, I can do that for ya :)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Uh Krusty, are you COMPLETELY unaware of the fact that Japan, part of the Axis, invaded the Aleutians (island chain, part of Alaska) during World War II and HEAVY combat operations ensued, including serious air to air and air to ground action. If you are completely oblivious to that, please, look it up.
Gee... look at the nazi kill signs... I don't think the nazis were flying Jagdgeschwader in Japan, man. I thought that point was rather clear, sorry if you didn't get it.
*EDIT* No sarcasm meant. I honestly meant I thought I was clear.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Gee... look at the nazi kill signs... I don't think the nazis were flying Jagdgeschwader in Japan, man. I thought that point was rather clear, sorry if you didn't get it.
*EDIT* No sarcasm meant. I honestly meant I thought I was clear.
Well, the picture was labeled 1st FG, which did fly against the Luftwaffe.
The commentary with the picture, however, said 54th FS, which flew the Aleutian/Alaskan theater.
And you said Axis planes in Alaska. Japan was the other major part of the Axis. So, the 54th would be knocking down Axis planes around Alaska. just Japanese Axis planes, not German Axis planes.
So no, you were actually quite vague.
-
Also bear in mind that a pilot operating in more than one theater with more than one aircraft would chalk up his total kills on his ride.
I've seen a Spitfire with lots of LW crosses and one red sun ;)
-
There's also a pic in one of the Osprey books of a 605 Squadron Mosquito with the pilot's Japanese and German kill markings.
-
Someplace I saw a pic with Italian, German and Japanese kill markings.
-
Near as I can tell they're either tractors or locamotives. They actually look more like covered wagons than anything else, at least in that picture. Probably safe to say they're some kind of ground targets.
-
This guy got his German and Italian kills flying 38s with the 82nd in the MTO. He ended up in the Pacific flying 51s and got his Japanese kill. His American "kill" was a lost C47 that was setting up to land on a Japanese Island. The C47 ditched and the crew were rescued after he carefully shot out the engines.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v730/fugari/CaptLouisCurdesinP-51D1945.jpg)
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Near as I can tell they're either tractors or locamotives. They actually look more like covered wagons than anything else, at least in that picture. Probably safe to say they're some kind of ground targets.
Looking closely, I'm almost certain they are wheelbarrows. The reason I say that is the old primitive wooden wheelbarrows, which are easily drawn, look just like those little symbols. They appear to have wheels only on one end. And handles, as well as "tubs".
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Uh Krusty, are you COMPLETELY unaware of the fact that Japan, part of the Axis, invaded the Aleutians (island chain, part of Alaska) during World War II and HEAVY combat operations ensued, including serious air to air and air to ground action. If you are completely oblivious to that, please, look it up.
It was in fact, the forgotten theatre
-
Originally posted by Raptor
It was in fact, the forgotten theatre
If I didn't have the 80th FS Headhunters, I'd have my second favorite 38 Squad in AH, and that's the 54th FS that flew those 38Es in the Aleutians in the toughest conditions imaginable and did the job without a lot of support or complaint.
Typical conditions for those 38 drivers
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1152947982_54th38.jpg)
-
Great picture! Whenever I think of the Aleutian Theatre, I think of a P38 landing on a flooded runway
-
I have two all time favorite 38 pictures that kind of shape my idea of AH. Both have a pair of 38s in them. First is this pair of 54th FS P38Es out on the prowl. They just look tough and there's nothing like heading out with a wingman in AH and having some fun on the hunt.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1152950362_54th38s.jpg)
And this one of 80th FS P38Hs with Porky Cragg in A "Porky II" and Cy Homer in V, "Cotton Duster", covering the 25s to Rabaul. This one probably goes back to the old AW Carthwheel Scenario when Del had the 80th and we covered the 25s. Again it's a pair of 38s out on the prowl doing the job. Just looks cool to me.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1152950374_80th38s.jpg)
Think I better get some sleep now that I've gone goofy on 38s again :)
-
Darn it Dan, you caused me to whip out the Terrain Editor and try some things.
First I tried to put a runway .5 ft below water and see if I could land on it. Turns out I was able to land on it, so it looked like the 38 was standing on water. Next I tried to see if I could get some wake (like seen on the PT Boats) to form when running across the runway. Sadly, planes and landing gear do not cause wake or splashes going across the water. Time to bug HTC about this, hopefully will see it in a future terrain;)
-
that was very clever.
have you just opened the door for float & sea planes or was this a well known trick?
-
I would say the P38 realy could shine in the pacific, simply cause the extreme speed advantage over most japanese planes.
It was somewhat like the 262 in 1945.
In Europe it dont had more to offer than the german planes. The Speed was similar(depending to the altitude), it had a relative bad initial roll, up to the J the roll ratio at highspeed also wasnt good and its dive problems are also well known.
But all this dont mean it was bad. The missing torque, the good upzoom (not climb, the constant climb wasnt outstanding, it only was the best US climber in 1941-44, the good upzoom is related to the big inertia at highspeed), the dive acceleration, the range, the firepower and good manouverability at medium to highspeed gave the pilot some possibilitys to get a kill and to survive.
At the end the performence of the P38(specialy J and L), same count for the 110, 410, P51 and P47(specialy late D´s) depends much to the current fuelload, this planes must have had very big differents in dogfight performence from take off to landing due to this.
So once more it depends to the pilot(and team), the tactical need and the tactical situation when the fight start, if the plane is successful or not.
In the ETO the Spit(great interceptor) and P51(great escorter) could do all needed things better(at least the german pilots had more respect for them) and it was more cheap, so the P38 got replaced.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
I think the P-38 is a forerunner of the F-15 Eagle today, Big, Powerfull, multirole, huge vertical performance, two engines, weapons layout, makes them similiar in their time.
-
Leadpig,
The F-15 has been a front line fighter for over 20years. The service life of the P-38 was relatively short even for it's time.
Do you know when the last P-38's were in service in the US?
-
btw, german groundtroops called the P38 "Gabelschwanzteufel", not the german pilots.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
btw, german groundtroops called the P38 "Gabelschwanzteufel", not the german pilots.
Even then it wasn't a wide spread 'nick name' for the P-38 used by Landser. It's just one of those over exaggerated Ami myths that has been spoon fed to the faithful. Cult of Der Gabelschwanz Teufel...
-
This overexaggerated "ami myth" seems to pop up in books all the time.
Just like so many other nicks picked up in the spur of the moment.
So which are true and which not....Whistling Death.......?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Leadpig,
The F-15 has been a front line fighter for over 20years. The service life of the P-38 was relatively short even for it's time.
Do you know when the last P-38's were in service in the US?
Due to today's technology it's possible to upgrade figters to more modern standards. Not so easy in 1940's, but in it's day it was the F-15's great grandaddy.
-
Yeah, Jugs, P-51s, F4Us, F6Fs etc... never were multi-role. I mean they didn't fly the exact same missions as P-38 and do them better did they...?
Hell, look at the short 'lifespan' of the P-51 and F4Us, one or 2 wars and they were done...
Seriously, you P-38 cultists get more comical with new batch...
-
I would say the P38 is more like the F-14, except for the navy factor. Both manouverable and capable fighters. But the F-14 is replaced by the cheaper F-18, and the P38 replaced by the cheaper P-51.
F-15 on the other hand, being replaced by the more expensive F-22. F-18 may end up being replaced by the more expensive F-35.
-
And they wonder why I've stopped flying the AvA and rarely tune 200 in any arena...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Yeah, Jugs, P-51s, F4Us, F6Fs etc... never were multi-role. I mean they didn't fly the exact same missions as P-38 and do them better did they...?
Hell, look at the short 'lifespan' of the P-51 and F4Us, one or 2 wars and they were done...
Seriously, you P-38 cultists get more comical with new batch...
I'm a big P38 fan, but I'd suggest that the 38 probably is more like the F111 was in the long run. A complex weapons system that in the end got replaced by less expensive and lower maint birds that could do the job just as well if not better.
The 51 would be the F15, multi-role, long range.
The P47 was probably the F4 of the crowd
Not sure who the WW2 F16 was unless you can use the Spit as the comparison, but obviously thats not a USAAF bird.
-
I don't think these comparisons really mean much. I certainly don't think we can link a progression from the P-38 to any aircraft used to today (or P-51 / P-47 etc..)
The roll of aircraft in war hasn't really changed. The equipment has just gotten more sophisticated and improved but there's no lineage from the P-38 to the F-111 or F-15.
The P-38 was not:
the F-15's great grandaddy.
The cultists will make any claim in their quest to proselytize the P-38s prowess.
-
I always thought of the P-38 as the F-15, P-51 as F-16, P-47 as A-10 (both Republic Thunderbolts afterall...), the F6F as the F-14 and the F4U as the F/A 18.
If you wanna make previous generation comparisons, then the P-40 is the F-5A, P-39 is the F-105, and the F4F is the... well, F-4 :)
"proselytize"- my, we like to throw out big words to try and numb peoples mind into accepting our POV don't we?
-
"proselytize"- my, we like to throw out big words to try and numb peoples mind into accepting our POV don't we?
Big word..? OK...
My 'big words' are no larger then the 'exaggerations' (oops another big word) of the cultists.
-
"the branch davidian tailed devil" lmao!!!!1:aok :aok :aok :rofl :rofl :rofl :O
-
Originally posted by Debonair
"the branch davidian tailed devil" lmao!!!!1:aok :aok :aok :rofl :rofl :rofl :O
Holy crap I was thinking the exact same thing.
:noid
-
At 30k the P-51B (V-1650-3) was pretty much the F-15 of it's date but it's hard to find a plane as limited at 30k as the P-38 out of modern aircraft.
Generally the P-38 did pretty well when used in the lower altitudes (say below 20k) and the LW pilots who fought against it at low altitudes (MTO) seem to respect it. But in ETO where the fight was mostly at high altitudes, the LW pilots had not much respect on it.
gripen
-
"Die P-38 begeistert mich nicht auf den ersten Blick. Zwei Motoren und eine Steuersaule, die den Anchein erwect, als hatte man sie aus ein Verkehrsflugzeug ubernommen - so sieht kein Jager aus. Aber auch sie halt eine Uberraschung bereit: Ihre steuerung arbeited mit Servo-Unterstutzung, so man das schwere Flugzeug im Luftkampf fast mit dem kleiner Finger fliegen kann"
Gunther Rall, Mein Flugbuch p.214
Short translation: The P38 didnt impress me much at first, 2 engines etc - looks of a transporter, - no fighter looks like that! But she also (as the other allied fighters he flew) has a surprize. The controls have power-assist so that one could fly this heavy aircraft in a battle with just ones little finger.
Same page, on the quality of allied fighters:
"Wie sehr sind uns die Allierten auch in Jagdflugzeugbau uberlegen!"
How much better the Allies also are at building fighters would be a close translation...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
about what..? Show a 'Galland lie'...
Lowell OTOH should change his call sign to:
(http://bratboyschool.com/bulletin/Pinocchio.gif)
LOL !!
-
Originally posted by gripen
Generally the P-38 did pretty well when used in the lower altitudes (say below 20k) and the LW pilots who fought against it at low altitudes (MTO) seem to respect it. But in ETO where the fight was mostly at high altitudes, the LW pilots had not much respect on it.
gripen
Hi,
the rated altitude of the P38J was 25000ft, it had its best relative performence above 20000ft. Below this its wasnt a match for the german planes. Its service selling was one of the highest in the US with 42000ft.
The P38 was a high alt fighters, its engine problems in cold air may have limited this a bit, but for sure it wasnt made as a low alt fighter.
The high wingaspectratio and the center fuselage/tail related turbolences limited ints max mach number and Vmax badly. According to my datas it was the slowest US plane at sealevel, together with the F6F.
544km/h and 1140m/min sea level with 2 x 1600HP(war emergency power) isnt a that good result. The P51B with military power was 20mph faster at sea level and the climb was only 100m/min worse.
In high alt the P38 could shine, not in low alt, of course only if the technic did work.
Greetings,
-
Knegel,
Please read the BAC report on P-38 from Ring's site (http://prodocs.netfirms.com/). I'm not talking about raw performance but compressibility effects.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Bruno
[B
Seriously, you P-38 cultists get more comical with new batch... [/B]
There is no one in the entire community more obsessed with the P-38 than you. It just happens your obsession with the P-38 is negative, not surprising considering your Luftwaffe bent. The truth is, no one in this community posts in more P-38 threads more often than you. No one is more comical than you. Your perpetual anti P-38 rant has been a great source of comic relief, dating back to your "Wotan" days.
-
Hi gripen,
iam not sure which one is the BAC report(no fun to D/L all with ISDN), but dive limits seems to be always good above the Vmax of the P38J.
Could you please give me the direct link?
Thanks in advance!
-
There is no one in the entire community more obsessed with the P-38 than you. It just happens your obsession with the P-38 is negative, not surprising considering your Luftwaffe bent. The truth is, no one in this community posts in more P-38 threads more often than you. No one is more comical than you. Your perpetual anti P-38 rant has been a great source of comic relief, dating back to your "Wotan" days.
Count the number of P-38 threads I have replies in and let us know, then come back here apologize for lying.
I haven't 'ranted against the P-38.' I said it was adequate, to you cultists that's heresy I know. What I have replied to in this thread is your exaggerations. You Ami Jihadists may not like hearing that but confronting fundamentalism in all its forms is a good thing.
Wotan Mit Uns!!! :p
-
Knegel,
The report is named:
RAAF command Lightning II report receive date 11 Oct 1943.doc
gripen
-
Bruno, I once mentioned or asked you about the "ami" usage in your posts.
I thought you were a German.
Bear in mind that many "amis" do not like being called "amis".
And even if you're one of them...it doesn'r make it better. Shall we than call the Germans "Fritzies"?
So in short, I (the non-american) find your excessive usage of the "ami" a tad provocative.
And as a salute and for yer all healths...a repetition in german text, from Gen. Gunther Rall:
"Die P-38 begeistert mich nicht auf den ersten Blick. Zwei Motoren und eine Steuersaule, die den Anchein erwect, als hatte man sie aus ein Verkehrsflugzeug ubernommen - so sieht kein Jager aus. Aber auch sie halt eine Uberraschung bereit: Ihre steuerung arbeited mit Servo-Unterstutzung, so man das schwere Flugzeug im Luftkampf fast mit dem kleiner Finger fliegen kann"
P.S. Rall is well and still travelling. He is at home now, but his calendar of various events is already stretching to the autumn!
-
Bear in mind that many "amis" do not like being called "amis".
ya think..?
So in short, I (the non-american) find your excessive usage of the "ami" a tad provocative.
ya think..?
What did you think of my use of 'Ami Jihadists'? Or 'Cultists' etc..?
Die P-38 begeistert mich nicht auf den ersten Blick. Zwei Motoren und eine Steuersaule, die den Anchein erwect, als hatte man sie aus ein Verkehrsflugzeug ubernommen - so sieht kein Jager aus. Aber auch sie halt eine Uberraschung bereit: Ihre steuerung arbeited mit Servo-Unterstutzung, so man das schwere Flugzeug im Luftkampf fast mit dem kleiner Finger fliegen kann
The late Js and Ls with boosted airlerons have been discussed recently over on AGW. I usually wouldn't refer you to a thread where by the best information comes from Crumpp. However, here it is:
Aileron Responsiveness (http://agw.bombs-away.net/showthread.php?t=57304)
Scroll down 2/3rds of the way. No doubt the cultists will read it and be back here with their 'that can't be right the P-38s pWnS!!!!'
As for quotes I can post many from LW pilots describing the P-38 in less then favorable light. However, quotes mean very little and none of those posted so far in this thread have any real connection with what I have said.
I will quote it one more time:
The P-38 is fine aircraft and it did well against the obsolete Japanese aircraft. There are occasions where it acquitted itself in outstanding fashion against the Luftwaffe. However, compared to what else the allies had in their arsenal, both in terms of fighters and fighter-bombers, the P-38 was little more then 'adequate'. Even in the Pacific there were 'better' aircraft.
Now ask yourself why are these types of Ami's (Cap'n etc...) so easily provoked by something like that..? They are just fanatical reactionaries and if saying so provokes them even more, so what..?
-
"'Adequate'" what exactly does it mean?
It is really a matter of context.
In the context of a fighter aircraft in a kill or be killed mortal struggle it means "better than what the other guy has", sufficient, enough, etc.
If it doesn't mean that, then the pilot is a dead & that would be unacceptable, bad, inadequate.
Originally posted by Bruno
...the P-38s pWnS!!!!
lmao
-
"'Adequate'" what exactly does it mean?
What do you think it means?
It towed the line until better air frames became available.
It was the best they had available in significant numbers at the time, especially in NA where it certainly was better then the P-40s and P-39s. It doesn't necessarily mean it was good enough to beat all challengers.
In the WETO it's main redeeming value was its range. As better aircraft came on line they took over that roll. It was no better an attack aircraft then the Typhoon or even the Jug etc... Even in the Pacific compared to aircraft like the F6F and the F4U was it 'better'?
If you read my post in this thread my point was clear. The P-38 was adequate enough to tow the line until better Ami aircraft entered service. Unless you decide to manufacture an offense from the word 'adequate' like the cultists are doing I don't see much to get upset about.
The cultists claim:
the P-38 was better than average
I asked them what aircraft constitutes the average and they won't answer. Was the P-51 average? P-47? F6F? F4U? How was the P-38 above any one of those? All those were cheaper to make, easier to produce, easier to train pilots on and could do just about everything a P-38 could (equal if not better).
-
zOMG!!!!1:noid :noid :O :O :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :noid
-
Bruno, you can toss around at will, but it will not change the fact that the P38 was quite a unique piece of work.
It's a twin, multi purpose, long range, reasonably fast, surprizingly agile - and hauls a lot.
There is no axis aircraft that matches the lot, be it 1942 and even 1945. There I mean all categories. 110? 210? 410? Tu-2? Nike? Mossie....??
In some aspects perhaps, but not enough. The P38 owns the seat as the best twin engined fighter of WW2, as well as a runner up for long escort and even strike/jabo. Well, maybe that's just me...after all I rather favour the Mossie...;)
But "Adequate".....naaa, - how about "Excellent"?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Bruno, I once mentioned or asked you about the "ami" usage in your posts.
I thought you were a German.
Bear in mind that many "amis" do not like being called "amis".
And even if you're one of them...it doesn'r make it better. Shall we than call the Germans "Fritzies"?
So in short, I (the non-american) find your excessive usage of the "ami" a tad provocative.
Angus,
After a while, you just ignore the fact that Wotan/Bruno is every bit as much a troll as anything else, and you ignore the fact that his best tactic is insults and the like. It's the best he can do, and pretty much all he has to offer. Just learn to see it for what it is, and then just ignore it. He'll probably try to reinvent himself again, as he did when he replaced "Wotan" with "Bruno", but he'll be just as easy to pick out next time as he was this time.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Knegel,
The report is named:
RAAF command Lightning II report receive date 11 Oct 1943.doc
gripen
Hi again,
this report dont show much new things, but they state that the performence of the P38II (is it a F, G or H??) is ok in high alt, while it get bad trouble in very high alt (above 36000ft) and we dont know if later models still did suffer the same buffering.
I still guess the P38´s had their best relative performence above 20000ft. 36000ft is around the service celling of most german1943-mid 44, particular above it, that the P38 start to get buffering and limit its manouverability badly above this hight i dont would count as a that big handycap, cause there wasnt a enemy to fight anymore. Rather i would count the possibility to climb into a safe alt as a advantage, no matter how good flyable the plane was there.
Since the escort mission in the ETO 43-44 normaly found place between 20000 and 32000ft i would consider the P38 as the right plane in the right moment, with a pretty good relative performence in this altitude, where the 190´s and gunpod armned 109G´s started to get bad.
Of course the P51 and even the P47 was better, but the 1st wasnt available and the 2nd dont had the needed range.
How they moddel the P38´s in AH looks a bit strange to me, they are real lowlevel fighters and probably outturn a Ta152H by easy.
Greetings,
-
By the time the P38 entered sevice in the ETO and MED, the fight was heading for lower altitudes.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
this report dont show much new things, but they state that the performence of the P38II (is it a F, G or H??) is ok in high alt, while it get bad trouble in very high alt (above 36000ft) and we dont know if later models still did suffer the same buffering.
There is no practical aerodynamic difference between the P-38 II (basicly a P-38F) and later models. Actually due to increased weight of the late models, the buffeting boundary was even closer than with earlier models.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
There is no practical aerodynamic difference between the P-38 II (basicly a P-38F) and later models. Actually due to increased weight of the late models, the buffeting boundary was even closer than with earlier models.
gripen
Gripen, the later models had dive flaps, the previous models (P-38J-10-Lo and earlier) did not. And the dive flaps DID make a BIG difference in the buffeting, both when it occured and how bad it was.
-
Hilts,
We have gone through this several times; the dive recovery did not change the speed where the buffeting or tuck under started. The dive recovery flaps just added positive pitch up moment making the recovery possible at higher speeds and added drag to keep the plane out of trouble.
gripen
-
Well, whatever you think Gripen, pilots tell me otherwise. And since neither you nor I have flown a real P-38, I'll just have to take their word for it. I certainly cannot justify taking your word for it. I can easily take Tony Levier's word for how the P-38 flew, and how it was affected by compression. Or Ben Kelsey's word. Especially over a British report on the P-38.
-
Well, whatever you think Gripen, pilots tell me otherwise. And since neither you nor I have flown a real P-38, I'll just have to take their word for it. I certainly cannot justify taking your word for it. I can easily take Tony Levier's word for how the P-38 flew, and how it was affected by compression. Or Ben Kelsey's word. Especially over a British report on the P-38.
And thus, scientific inquiry is abandoned for blind faith. It is only fitting Bruno describes you guys as a 'cult'.
Perhaps you guys could form an alliance with the "Church of Bounced Bullets Killing Tigers" cult. I heard they got some excellent true testimonies from guys who say they really did kill a Tiger tank by bouncing bullets and hitting them from underneathe.
I mean, a real WW2 vet says so, so it must be true, right?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
And thus, scientific inquiry is abandoned for blind faith. It is only fitting Bruno describes you guys as a 'cult'.
Perhaps you guys could form an alliance with the "Church of Bounced Bullets Killing Tigers" cult. I heard they got some excellent true testimonies from guys who say they really did kill a Tiger tank by bouncing bullets and hitting them from underneathe.
I mean, a real WW2 vet says so, so it must be true, right?
Well, Kweassa, I was wondering how long it would take you to show up, and I'm not at all surprised to see you support Wotan/Bruno in the name calling. How simply predictable of you.
Just so you know, Levier was a Lockheed test pilot, and Kelsey was the Army Air Corps' officer in charge of the P-38 project. Scientific inquiry? How about the entire Lockheed test program, which it so happens Levier and Kelsey were responsible for? I'd say they'd be likely to have about all the scientific data you'd ever want about the P-38.
But you just go ahead with your personal insult campaign and ignore what was said by two men who were tasked with gathering data and testing the plane for YEARS.
The other thing that does not surprise me as that you would think yourself so smart and yet be so ignorant about the subject as to not know who Levier and Kelsey were, and to dismiss them as just veterans who flew the plane. Doesn't surprise me in the least, not from you, or anyone like you.
I would expect nothing less from you than a personal attack. Have at it Kweassa. Join up with Wotan/Bruno. Enjoy each others company.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Hilts,
We have gone through this several times; the dive recovery did not change the speed where the buffeting or tuck under started. The dive recovery flaps just added positive pitch up moment making the recovery possible at higher speeds and added drag to keep the plane out of trouble.
gripen
The dive flaps changed the airflow over the leading edge of the wing...
ack-ack
-
See Kweassa, he trumps allwith the Gospel according to... and the Book of....
After all these guys personally told the Cap'n Gripen is wrong, the RAAF tests are wrong, science is wrong, especially when its in conflict with the 'word of -38'.
Notice how all the Cap'n offers is his fundamentalist interpretation of what someone told him... He drank the cool-aid long ago and he now plays the victim. Comparing his faith in -38 to a cult is apparently a personal attack. Ami = personal attack, pointing out his exaggerations = personal attack, hell he was even offended that some one didn't like his favorite TV show.
What a cross he bears...
-
Hmm
Just like the -Insert fav LW ace- said" We would lower flaps at much highers speeds than the field manual states.".
Not trying to start anything Bruno but whats good for the goose and all.
I am not saying you said anything like this but other LW fanbois have.
Bronk
-
Hey Wotan, who said science was wrong?
I merely pointed out what the chief test pilot who helped develop the plane said, and backed up with proof. While you're at it, ignore Kelsey too, he was the USAAC officer in charge of the program.
Of course, I'm sure you and Kweassa will ignore both of them.
Thank you for proving my point as well. Continue to offer your little snide remarks, that's all you have, so stick with it.
-
Stumbled here:
"And the dive flaps DID make a BIG difference in the buffeting, both when it occured and how bad it was."
Weren't they for recovery? In a dive that's crucial, but how would that affect buffeting in the zone of high alt and top speed?
-
From the Pilot's Manual:
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/p38dive.jpg)
Should end most debate.
Gripen is correct, the NACA designed dive recovery flaps induced pitch up and increased drag.
These flaps did not change airflow over the leading edge of the wing as they were located mid-chord under the outer wing panels.
Corky Meyer has written about his first experience flying the P-38L with the dive recovery flaps at the Joint Fighter Conference. He deployed the dive recovery flaps and entered a dive. As the aircraft began to buffet, the nose gradually pulled up and the plane executed a 3g, hands off pullout. To prevent the pullout, Meyer stated that forward pressure on the yoke was needed with increased nose-down trim.
Meyer also flew a P-47D-30 with dive recovery flaps retro-fitted. Upon their return to Grumman, Bob Hall, based upon Meyer's experiences at the conference, decided to install dive recovery flaps on the XF8F-1 prototype. All production F8Fs were so equipped.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Well, as usual Widewing pops in with something soli :aok
-
Hey Wotan, who said science was wrong?
I merely pointed out what the chief test pilot who helped develop the plane said, and backed up with proof. While you're at it, ignore Kelsey too, he was the USAAC officer in charge of the program.
Of course, I'm sure you and Kweassa will ignore both of them.
Thank you for proving my point as well. Continue to offer your little snide remarks, that's all you have, so stick with it.
Gripen gave you the reference and facts, there's your science.
Is Widewing lying now?
It's not that I don't believe Levier or Kelsey, AFAIk they haven't made one post in this thread. :p It's that your interpretation of what they said is filtered through your theology and will be contorted to and reshaped so that it is compatible with your faith.
I know you want to make a post and tell us why Widewing must be wrong. Let's see what you come up with.
BTW did you read what Crumpp attached in the thread I linked from AGW? You must not have or else you would have posted a a few lines about how wrong that is...
Damn Angus I was really hoping for one of your 'I heards...' :)
-
i h8 2 pile on, but...
OMFG its teh forum 17 spin room!!!!
lol aircraft forum spin recovery lolof
-
Bruno, I'll bring you one :D
"I heard from a pilot who flew in the med, that the first P38 crews, and generally U.S. aircrew that arrived in the med, were really green."
I don't know what squadrons exactly, but that can easily be dug up.
I'll type up one or two examples today if you like.
Point being that a LW pilot might bear less respect for a new aircraft in the fight if it's most likely being flown by a greenhorn :D
-
Point being that a LW pilot might bear less respect for a new aircraft in the fight if it's most likely being flown by a greenhorn
Don't tell the cultists that. They seem to infer that the P-38 was so above average that it could help make up for the lack of good piloting.
However, there are still LW pilots who had less then flattering things to say about the P-38 much later in the WETO. However, as I said previously, and in other threads, pilot anecdotes and stories are far from objective and usually only represent one side in a specific context. Taking any grand and wide sweeping meaning from those accounts, especially as it relates to modeling a game, is problematic.
There were certainly above average pilots flying the P-38 and their records in the P-38 stand-up against the best pilots of the war on all sides. Translating that into a cult of -38 is just over the top. It would be like saying that since Hartmann flew 109s and had the most kills that the 109 was teh bestest plane evah!!!.
-
"It would be like saying that since Hartmann flew 109s and had the most kills that the 109 was teh bestest plane evah!!!."
Heard that one many times :D
-
Originally posted by gripen
There is no practical aerodynamic difference between the P-38 II (basicly a P-38F) and later models. Actually due to increased weight of the late models, the buffeting boundary was even closer than with earlier models.
gripen
Hi,
they talk about bad fitted wingroots in the tested plane as cause for the buffering, they did try to fit it better, but who knows if it realy fit.
They say that the P38 wasnt able to turn above 36000ft, if it realy was so in all P38´s, why they gave later models a even better high alt performence?
I realy dont think the P38 was a that good plane at all, but would the USAF have ordered and keeped the P38 in frontline with such limitations??
Btw, i doubt that the buffering was a high speed stall, it must have to do with the pre supersonic problems. Or is there a theory why a plane, good above its stall speed, should start to stall without stickinput(strait flight), cause its getting faster??
btw, the test say that the temperature indicate circumstances like in 40000ft "norm atmosphere". Thats maybe the reason why the pilots in the pacific, in the USA, south europe and summer in general didnt encounter this problems so early.
Dont get me wrong, the P38´s divelimit was a real bad handycap, but to believe the USA(A)F did use a plane, made for high alt, that was absolut not manouverable anymore above 36000ft seems to be strange to me.
Greetings,
-
Originally posted by Knegel
they talk about bad fitted wingroots in the tested plane as cause for the buffering, they did try to fit it better, but who knows if it realy fit.
BAC tested two planes and the results were similar as tested by Lockheed. The fillets might have caused a minor difference in buffeting but the phenomena itself is caused by entire area between the engines.
Originally posted by Knegel
They say that the P38 wasnt able to turn above 36000ft, if it realy was so in all P38´s, why they gave later models a even better high alt performence?
The increased ratings gave speed and climb which were usefull.
Originally posted by Knegel
I realy dont think the P38 was a that good plane at all, but would the USAF have ordered and keeped the P38 in frontline with such limitations??
Generally the P-38 did fine below 20k and had a capability to carry large amount of stuff. In addition it was in large scale production so there was no reason to replace it except in the areas where the high altitude performance was really needed (namely ETO).
The number of P-38s in the USAAF front line units tended to decrease towards the end of the war despite the production reached it's peak 1945. In Europe there were 3 groups in the end and also in the pacific some P-38 units transitioned to other types, SWPA being the only active front where the P-38 maintained it's status. There were plenty of P-38 in the places like Alaska and Panama but not too much action there.
Originally posted by Knegel
Btw, i doubt that the buffering was a high speed stall, it must have to do with the pre supersonic problems. Or is there a theory why a plane, good above its stall speed, should start to stall without stickinput(strait flight), cause its getting faster??
This has been discused here several times, use the search. Basicly the Clmax drops very fast when the Mach number increases in the case of the P-38.
gripen
-
Knegel,
in a LW pilot intervue I once read, the guy said flying a 109 above 30,000ft was like walking a tightrope. This not a knock of the 109 for most a/c had to be flown carefully above 30,000ft.
-
The dive limit on the P-38 needs to be put in context with the P-51D which could be flown into incredibly high speed dives and still be well under control.
I have read many annecdotes of pilots in combat dives in excess of 600MPH IAS (up to 650MPH I believe) at roughly 10K. Sounds incredible but that is from after action reports. Who knows what the actual speed was.
-
i bet someone here has a P-51 POH or similar doc that has an IAS to CAS conversion chart
-
The redline for the P-51D is 505MPH at 10,000FT.
(http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-51/P-514GDIVE.gif)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Knegel,
in a LW pilot intervue I once read, the guy said flying a 109 above 30,000ft was like walking a tightrope. This not a knock of the 109 for most a/c had to be flown carefully above 30,000ft.
Thats what i mean,
we need to see the report in comparison to other planes in that high alt.
The Brits probably was used to the Spitfires up there and i have no doubt that they did behave much better regarding the handling.
The P38H´s and earlyer maybe had their best alt below 20.000ft, the rated alt was around 20.000ft and the airframe itself was better below 20.000ft and in the pacific the P38´s was so much faster than all 41-44 Japanese planes that its drawbacks dont count, but in the ETO they got performence probelms below 20.000ft where the german planes was pretty good(specialy FW190´s) , thats why i consider the best relative alt of the P38´s between 20000 and 30000ft, despite its handycaps.
Afaik the FW190´s did start to handle bad above 24000ft, not only cause the power decreasement, but due to the high wing(lift)load.
And for sure the P38 was obsolete as high alt fighter when planes like the Ta152, 109G´s with high alt DB´s or GM1, Ki-84 etc did appear, which had a much better performence up there than their predecessors, but to late and to few. 1942-early 44 the P38 imho was not to bad in the ETO.
Btw, what about the fowler flaps of the P38, didnt they help to solve some problems??
Greetings,
-
Knegel,
Comparison at high altitude has been posted here several times. If you are unable to use search, here (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/digidoc/report/tn/44/NACA-TN-1044.PDF) is direct link. Basicly same phenomena can be found from the Widewing's post above. Comparisons on critical mach number has been posted here several times as well.
gripen
-
Well, by the time the P38 was getting "common" in the MTO and then the ETO, much of the fighting had drawn a little lower than before.
But the bomber escorts were always quite high though.
-
Now that I've read through just about every post, I want to just point out one thing:NOBODY mentioned that the top 2 scoring American Aces(That includes both the ETO and Pacific theatres) flew the...P...3...8. :eek:
And I'm not even a P-38 cultist.
-
BTW, that would be Major(s) Richard Bong and Thomas McGuire.
-
No disrespect toward Mr.Bong or McGuire.. but really, how many Germans did they shoot down?
Again, no disrespect meant for the US military in the Pacific, but I don't think its fair to say the competition the Marines and the Navy met in the Pacific, exactly matches the levels of competition the P-47s or P-51s had to face in the ETO.
-
To day that the Japanese the US faced in the PTO were somehow below average or not comparable to the skill of the Nazis is laughable. Especially when a lot of the Nazis padded their score on obsolete Soviet aircraft.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Now that I've read through just about every post, I want to just point out one thing:NOBODY mentioned that the top 2 scoring American Aces(That includes both the ETO and Pacific theatres) flew the...P...3...8. :eek:
And I'm not even a P-38 cultist.
What does score matter? Even the top Croatian ace of the war clainmed more kills then either of those 2.
Mato Dukovac 44 confirmed / 1 unconfirmed / 15.(Kroat)/JG 52
Cvitan Galić 38 / 5 15.(Kroat)/JG 52
Romanians did even better:
Constantin Cantacuzino dpending on the source had anywhere from 56-69 kills
(56 confirmed / 13 unconfirmed) Gr 5,7 & 9 vân
Alexandru Serbănescu / 47 / 8 / Gr 7 & 9 vân
How about Hungarians:
Dezsö Szentgyörgyi 30 / 1 / 101/2 V.Szd.
Lajos Tóth 26 101/2 V.Szd.
Most of these claims came while flying 109Gs defending Hungarian cities from Ami heavy bombers etc...
What does this mean, well nothing. Just like your point about Bong and McGuire. Kill totals alone don't say much about an aircraft, these reflect more about the pilots. There's no doubt that as the war progressed the Ami's had both a quantitative advantage, not just in the number of aircraft but in the number of highly skilled pilots, and a qualitative advantage, not just in superior equipment but the average Ami pilot was more well trained / skilled then the either the Luftwaffe and certainly the Japanese.
These reasons for this are many but none of it has to do with 'how great the P-38s was'.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
No disrespect toward Mr.Bong or McGuire.. but really, how many Germans did they shoot down?
Again, no disrespect meant for the US military in the Pacific, but I don't think its fair to say the competition the Marines and the Navy met in the Pacific, exactly matches the levels of competition the P-47s or P-51s had to face in the ETO.
Probably this was true after mid-1942. Before then, the quality of the Japanese pilots, and the disparate capabilities of the aircraft involved, probably presented the Americans with the most formidable opposition they faced anywhere during the entire war.
- oldman
-
From the beginning of the Pacific war and well into the war, the Japanese pilots were VERY skilled. Yet the USA won the match. How? The hardware (Speed, ROC/Zoom, High speed handling, firepower, armour and RADIO), the tactics and the teamwork. Eventually, there was the numbers too...
The P38 was one of the workhorses there, and one of the first to totally outclass the Zeke (Well, or the Hayabusha), as well as being a better attacker than anything the Japs had at the time.
In Europe and the Med, there's something different. 109F's and G's, and 190's. So, suddenly the P38 has no particular superiority in combat, but is yet able to hold it's own in a fight, - at certain altitudes, - which, mind you, is something that all the fighters share....
And it was very well multy-role. Don't see 109's doing much of the stuff the 38's did.
-
Before then, the quality of the Japanese pilots, and the disparate capabilities of the aircraft involved, probably presented the Americans with the most formidable opposition they faced anywhere during the entire war.
That's just silly. The only aircraft the Japanese had in use that could be considered 'superior' was the A6M2 which was poorly armed and poorly armored. Despite it's climb advantage and higher speed are certain altitudes the F4F could more then hold its own. The only time the F4F (-3 or -4) could get into trouble was if the the Ami pilot played into the strengths of the Zero.
IJA fighters were slow, had even worse armament then the A6M2 and were just as fragile. Japanese pilot combat tactics were as out dated as their infantry tactics even before the war started. They may have had good technical fliers but their leadership and tactics were crap and were so through out the war.
IJA/N bombers were certainly very capable but only so far as they had air superiority.
USAAF fighters were even better matched against the Japanese then the USN fighters. The only exception was maybe the P-39s but they were still fast enough to escape. Even the P-40s gave out more then they took. The only real threat to the Ami early Ami Pacific front was the lack of equipment early on. Pilot quality and capablility was well in favor of the US.
If the Japanese were such a threat then surely the US would have re-thought their 'Europe First' commitment. The only real successes the Japanese had were from surprise or built from that surprise. They spent the rest of the war getting beat all the way across the Pacific.
-
Woot?
Rack an early F4F against the Zeke. Or a P40 If the Zeke makes it past the merge and the fight goes low and slow, the Zeke has the upper hand.
And armament? Twin 20mm's always make a bit....
VS the Zeke, the P38 would count as the first US fighter that is flat out superior. Of course, soon thereafter, there were others like F6F, FM2, F4U and such.
But first,,,,P38.
BTW, the early engagements were against other and older Japanese fighters than the Zeke. Slow speed, no radio, twin mg's, fixed undercarriage etc. (some or all). Even a HurryI is faster than those.
-
An F4F-3/4 can easily hold its own against an A6M2. Real life isn't like AH where by ever fight is to the death while pulling the stick to your belly. A well trained, well disciplined pilot is not going to play to the strengths on his enemy. The F4Fs could easily out maneuver the zekes at higher speeds. They could escape and evade an attacking zero by diving and rolling away. Add that to better unit training and tactics and that's exactly what happened in real life. Ami pilots were better trained to fight as a unit compared to the Japanese.
twin 20mm's always make a bit....
They are 2cm Type 99 Mk 1 they are just barely above an HMG in terms of lethality. However, it's low muzzle velocity made landing snapshots difficult. If the Amis keep the fight fast, even if they didn't have a significant advantage in top speed, their F4Fs would be able to out maneuver the A6M2 as such making gunnery more difficult. The fast the fight the less maneuverable was the A6M2. The A6M2 only carried 60rpg. In fact if you have read anything about Japanese fighter pilots, like Sabaru Sakai for one, you will see that they had little love for those early cannon.
BTW, the early engagements were against other and older Japanese fighters than the Zeke. Slow speed, no radio, twin mg's, fixed undercarriage etc. (some or all). Even a HurryI is faster than those.
No shyte that's why I wrote:
IJA fighters were slow, had even worse armament then the A6M2 and were just as fragile. Japanese pilot combat tactics were as out dated as their infantry tactics even before the war started. They may have had good technical fliers but their leadership and tactics were crap and were so through out the war.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
The F4Fs could easily out maneuver the zekes at higher speeds. They could escape and evade an attacking zero by diving and rolling away. Add that to better unit training and tactics and that's exactly what happened in real life.
Heh.
I don't think that the relative losses in the Pacific up through the end of 1942 bear this out, Bruno. Might work in AH. Might even have worked in real life, had the pilots been privy to your learning. But it didn't work out that way historically.
- oldman
-
How the heck did Sakai and Iwamote get their kills....
-
Originally posted by Angus
How the heck did Sakai and Iwamote get their kills....
How did Foss, Smith, Carl, Swett and Galer got theirs ?
F4F claimed a kill ratio of 6.9 to 1 , 178 lost, for 905 'confirmed' kills.
-
USN's F4F and USAAF P40's success against Zeke's:
1 and 2, Tactics and Teamwork.
But to the P38, - that's where you have something MORE, like a bigger performance difference, which always comes in handy.
-
Interesting story of a P-38 pilot over Europe.
With two relatively easy kills under his belt, Robin Olds became cocky and overconfident. Two weeks later, On 25 August 1944, this attitude nearly killed him. On this day Olds, now a flight leader, was leading a four-plane formation in a sweep to Berlin. Zemke's plan called for Olds and the other 64 pilots of the 479th to fly ahead of an American bombing force in an attempt to flush out fighter opposition. The flight would then escort the bombers through the most heavily defended areas near Berlin and then "beat the hell out of anything that flew, rolled, floated, or crawled in Germany." The plan worked.
Several miles south of Muritzgee, Olds' flight ran straight into a huge swarm of 55 Messerschmitt 109s. The ME-109, Germany's most famous fighter of the war, had a maximum speed of 386 mph [sic] and carried a 20-mm cannon and two 13-mm machine guns. Olds' twin-engine P-38, by comparison, could reach a top speed of 414 mph and carried one 20-mm cannon and four .50-caliber machine guns, but it was less maneuverable than the agile 109. As Olds remembered it, the hair on his neck began to stand up, so he edged his flight way out to the left of the group. Finally, he spotted his prey.
Frightened, the pilots in his number three and four planes bugged out, leaving Olds and his wingman alone against this massive armada of Nazi fighter power. The ME-109s were in perfect position to wipe out the attacking Allied bomber force. "I remember vividly the exhilaration, the cotton-mouthed excitement," recalled Olds. "I knew all the others had fallen behind, so far behind they didn't have me in sight. I also knew the two of us were about to attack fifty-five enemy aircraft alone."
As his first target grew larger and larger in his sights, Olds placed his finger on the trigger of his four .50-caliber machine guns, ready to squirt a stream of lead into the cockpit of the 109. Suddenly, his engines sputtered and quit. In all the excitement, he had forgotten to switch fuel tanks and his engines had run dry. Without taking his eyes off the target, he switched tanks. The engines erupted and came back to life, and Olds took his shot. "I don't know if anyone ever shot down an enemy aircraft while on a glide slope, but I did. I fired and he sparkled with hits, smoked, dove off on his right wing and promptly bailed out." Olds then continued toward another bogey. He downed this second Messerschmitt with a lucky deflection shot, earning him his second kill for the day and fourth in the war.
Olds then pulled out of his dive at 15,000 feet with both his Allison engines at full boost. The force of this pullout sucked the canopy right off his aircraft. He was now 500 miles from home in enemy territory, low on gas, so cold he was teetering on the edge of hypothermia, and with limited maneuverability due to his open cockpit. If that weren't enough, an ME-109 pulled into Olds' rear quadrant and started to pepper him with its 20-and 13-millimeter gunfire. "I tried to break left and pulled desperately at the yoke. The old P-38 wouldn't turn worth two cents with that canopy gone, and the bullets continued to come home."
He continued to try to jink his aircraft to frustrate the ME-109's gunfire — but then the tables suddenly and miraculously turned. The ME-109 overestimated Olds' speed and overshot him. "Now I wasn't the crippled prey, I was the hawk. I rolled wings level, sighted, fired a long burst, and caught him square." The ME-109 yawed up and then nosed down into a field, bursting into a ball of fire in sight of the Baltic Sea. He knew then he would survive "for it was a different day; a different day for the rest of my life." Robin Olds was now an ace!
Before the war ended, Olds would get another seven kills in the air and destroy 11.5 enemy aircraft on the ground. He would also leave Europe a squadron commander and a major at the tender age of twenty-two.
Thought you P-38 drivers (like me) would like to know that even pilots in R/L forgot to switch tanks. LOL.
Best Regards
Cement
-
The P-38 did so poorly in the ETO due to poor pilots.
I've seen some equations that talk about pilots and planes. Pilot quality is only disregarded if the plane is so obsolete that it isnt a threat.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The P-38 did so poorly in the ETO due to poor pilots.
I've seen some equations that talk about pilots and planes. Pilot quality is only disregarded if the plane is so obsolete that it isnt a threat.
You need better bait... But, if that's genuine sentiment, you need an edu-ma-cation...
Read this for starters. (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Must have been something in the water tonite Widewing :)
-
I'll put some more detail into my statement.
P-38 pilots in the ETO were inexperienced and thusly poor pilots. A specific example was fuel management. There were cases where P-38 pilots had to leave other P-38s in dogfights because they were using too much fuel.
-
Ah, training, well, it was an issue in the MTO, at least in the beginning.
From Anthony Barley's book, Smoke trails in the sky:
(Sqn Leader 111 sqn RAF, Spitfire Mk Vb trop)
Nov 30th 1942. Location probably close to Souk-El-Arba.
In the afternoon we shared our patrol line with a squadron of USAAF Lightnings. They were flying Hendon air display formation, and had obviously never seen an enemy in their lives. If I'd had their wavelength, I would have told them to go home before someone spotted them as sitting ducks.
Suddenly I saw two 109's circle them like vultures, selecting their prey, taking their time. They were thinking just as I was, I reckoned, and forgot about anything else. As they started their attack on their unsuspecting enemy, I started ours and the 109's never looked behind, into the sun, until it was too late. As we turned for home base, running out of fuel, we saw the Lightnings sail on in close formation completely unaware of what had been going on around them. I made a note to get in touch with their Group Commander as soon as I'd landed, and tell him the facts of life, or death, but it was comforting to see some American support at last.
(Bartley does not claim an enemy that day).
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I'll put some more detail into my statement.
P-38 pilots in the ETO were inexperienced and thusly poor pilots. A specific example was fuel management. There were cases where P-38 pilots had to leave other P-38s in dogfights because they were using too much fuel.
Inexperienced pilots, flying any type of fighter, in any theater, would have been at a disadvantage.
P-38s in the ETO were assigned missions that would take them to the limits of their endurance (range), thus every mission was governed by fuel state. Fuel management was determined by circumstances usually beyond the control of individual pilots.
You also need to understand that P-38s were operating in every theater of the war at the same time. All pilots were trained in the same system back in the US. There was no statistical difference in pilot quality between theaters. Initially, P-38 pilots in the ETO had a great deal of flight time in their Lightnings, to the extent that one could state that they were likely over-trained. Replacement pilots were an issue as most had never flown the P-38 prior to being assigned from the pilot pool in Britain. Thus, they received the minimal amount of training before being thrown into combat. That doesn't mean they were poor pilots, they were unfamiliar with the aircraft and literally had to learn on the job. As the P-38 was considerably more complicated to operate than single-engine fighters, this invariably resulted in higher casualties during their first 20 to 30 hours of combat. However, once they had a few missions under their belts, these pilots were no less able than their counterparts flying Mustangs and Thunderbolts.
Remember, the single greatest attribute was combat experience. Green units had to get their experience without the benefit of having a core of combat veterans to teach and guide them. This basic fact applied to all air forces of all nations.
My regards,
Widewing
-
One aspect of the P-38 seldom discussed was the fact that Lockheed did not design in much "stretch".
By "stretch", I refer to the ability of the airframe to be upgraded and improved to remain competitive as the general level of performance increased during the course of the war. I suppose that the best examples of "stretch" are the F4U, P-51s, Spitfires and 190 series. Adding to this was Lockheed's prolonged development of the Lightning. It took four years to get the P-38 into combat. It took almost 6 years to get to the ultimate version. Some of this can be laid at the feet of the USAAF, some to the WPB, but the majority of the blame belongs squarely at the feet of Lockheed. By late 1943, Lockheed had done about all it was willing to do with the P-38. They had already moved on to the XP-80 and saw the Shooting Star as their future, which it was.
Documentation certainly indicates that the USAAF was unhappy with the speed with which upgrades were made, as well as the relatively slow delivery rate. Indeed, Lockheed failed to make its contracted monthly delivery quotas 7 times between July of 1942 and January of 1944. Usually the margin was less than 40 aircraft, but the USAAF was not pleased and the War Production Board sent an audit team to Lockheed to discover what was causing the production delays. They found a host of problems, from poor procurement management to unmotivated assembly line personnel. Allison was also found to be deficient in on-time delivery and you can't deliver planes without engines. On several occations, P-38 production was halted due to not receiving engines. Allison blamed the lack of P-38 engine production capacity on the WPB for continuing P-40 production long after the fighter's usefulness was past. Hindsight shows Allison to have been correct. Another issue was unreliable delivery of turbochargers....
Other issues were never fully rectified by Lockheed. Poor to non-existent cockpit heating and a miserable cockpit layout were serious problems that greatly contributed to pilot efficiency and workload. These were fundamental flaws that should have been corrected very early in the program. Field reports flooded back to Lockheed about needed improvements, but they were exceptionally slow in getting needed design improvements into the production line. Not all blame falls on Lockheed as the WPB was often obtuse as well. However, after years of hearing excuses from Lockheed, the WPB was disinclined to authorize production line stoppages for retooling as Lockheed was already behind on deliveries. Major changes, such as those asked for to retool for the P-38K were summarily squashed.
I've had the opportunity to sit in the cockpit of a P-38, a P-51D, a P-47N and an F6F-5. Compared to the Lightning, the others were much better in terms of simplicity and layout, with the F6F being a marvel of ergonomic design in comparison to the Lightning.
We need only look at the Fw 190's engine management system to see how to do it right....
On the other side of the coin was Republic and North American, who delivered on time every month, and both managed to deliver more aircraft than the quota required.
If we examine the Navy's fighter manufacturers, we find that Vought also suffered from a delivery standpoint, as well as a slow and prolonged development. This was greatly mitigated by Goodyear being a second supplier with excellent efficiency. Brewster, on the other hand, was miserable and eventually lost their contract.
Grumman was the Navy's darling. Not only did it get the F6F from prototype to squadrons in 16 months, it exceeded the minimum delivery every month the fighter was produced. Indeed, Grumman's efficiency of manufacture was so great that the work force was reduced by 20% and the manufacturing rate still increased! In March of 1945, Grumman delivered 605 Hellcats from its only factory, a record for monthly production that no other American manufacturer even came close to matching. Grumman completed F6Fs faster than the Navy could accept them.
Lockheed's biggest issue was management... Not until 1945 did Lockheed demonstrate manufacturing efficiency competitive with the other major manufacturers, and that is probably due to the switch-over to the less complicated P-80.
In general, the P-38 was a capable aircraft, a reasonable match for anything it encountered right up until 1945. By then, it's performance was marginal compared to the late-war fighters entering service. Like the F6F, it was being surplanted rapidly by newer types. However, like the F6F, it was the best available when it was most needed, and it certainly acquitted itself very well and was generally loved by those who flew it. Its multi-role ability was never exceeded by any other WWII fighter.
My regards,
Widewing
Edited for typos..... :)
-
"Its multi-role ability was never exceeded by any other WWII fighter. "
Exactly, IMHO.
But you have some close runner-ups I guess.
Mossie for instance was a whoopingly clever thing.
-
Pilots of the 1st and 14th FG (prior to re-naming; Pursuit Groups) had some time in their P-38s before arriving in England. They first began receiving their P-38s in mid/late '41 before Pearl Harbor. They had sometime in the US before crossing the Atlantic. 2 P-38 squadrons had a stay over in Iceland and on 14 Aug '42 Lt. Elza D. Shahan from the 27th FS shared a 'kill' of a Fw 200 Condor with Lt. Joseph D. Schafer who was flying a P-40C. The was the first Luftwaffe aircraft claimed in the ETO by USAAF fighters.
These 2 FG flew some 350 sorties or so with little contact with the Luftwaffe before being transferred to the 12th AF. For the 1st FG their first 'combat mission' was flown on 13 Aug '42 when 2 P-38s from the 94th FS scrambled to intercept enemy aircraft over the North Sea. They made no contact. On 1 Sept '42 the 1st flew their first sweep over France. They spotted several Luftwaffe fighters but no combat ensued.
On 2 Oct '42 Lt. William H. Young was flying a Circus (Circus 221) with 35 or so other P-38s of the 1st FG escorting B-17s to Amiens to bomb the Avions Potez factory. These P-38s were engaged by elements of Jagdgeschwader 26 and Young was shot down by Uffz. Hans-Joachim Stoller (1 confirmed kill) of 2./JG26 (From Tony Wood's casualty and claim list; Calais-Cap Gris Nez: 6.500 m. 16.25 Film C. 2035/II Anerk: Nr.85).
Shortly thereafter both the 1st and 14th (including the 82nd) were transferred to the 12th AF in the Med / NA.
These pilots may not have had significant 'combat training' prior to being dispatch to the ETO but they certainly were familiar with their aircraft and had significant on the job training. By the time they reached NA they had a reasonable number of combat sorties under their belt. This could only contribute to then getting better.
Replacements and expansion are a different story. These pilots didn't have the time to mature into their rides before being pressed into service. This was far more significant in regards to the Luftwaffe and Japanese as the war progressed but all sides had to deal with it.
-
Agreed that the ETO/MTO 38 drivers of the 1st, 14th, 82nd, and later the 20th, 55th and 479th were all 38 trained prior to going over. It was more of an issue for folks like the 370th who had been in Jugs and were transitioned to 38Js in May of 44 in England.
The ETO replacement pilots were for the most part single engined trained and you can see in the 38 Group Histories a disctinct difference in opinion where the 38 trained guys liked the 38s and didn't want to transition to 51 "Spam cans" and the single engined trained guys welcomed the change. It was interesting to see that the 370th FG pilots who'd transitioned from Jugs to 38s, weren't thrilled when they transitioned from the 38s to 51s in March of 45. And like the 56th that stuck with the Jugs instead of Mustangs, the 474th was able to stay in 38s as they preferred, getting the cast offs from the 370th to keep up their numbers.
Also interesting is that it was the Pacific 38 guys who were transitioning on the fly more often as the 80th for example went from P39s to 38s as did the 39th, 9th and any of the others that ultimately flew 38s in the Pacific. From memory none of the 5th AF Fighter Groups went to the Pacific with 38s to start like the ETO/MTO groups did.
For the obvious reasons, the 38 with the twin engines and range was the preferred ride of the Pacific fighter drivers with all that overwater flying. Something about that 2nd engine made a difference and they certainly had confidence in the 38s ability to compete with the Japanese planes they encountered.
-
Well, the 38 was unique in that way, that it EASILY flew on one engine.
BTW, Guppy or Bruno, would you know roughly what P38 squadron Bartley could be referring to?
There was more frustration hitting him, - the squadron also got bombed by B17's with some casualties because of it, one pilot got shot down and later died from his wounds from U.S. ack-ack, and a fligt of U.S. Spitfires most or alltogether taxied off the runway due to wrong decision in landing.
All on the way from Bone - Souk-el-Arba and onwards.
BTW, Bruno, this text of the P38's being jumped was the one I promised you before. Just so that you know.
-
I am unfamiliar with 'Bartley'. Is this a quote of his:
There was more frustration hitting him, - the squadron also got bombed by B17's with some casualties because of it, one pilot got shot down and later died from his wounds from U.S. ack-ack, and a fligt of U.S. Spitfires most or alltogether taxied off the runway due to wrong decision in landing.
All on the way from Bone - Souk-el-Arba and onwards.
..?
I am headed out for the evening and skimmed the last couple of posts. I will check my stuff later tonight.
-
Nope, well it's summed up from the rest of his stuff.
I have his book which is a rarity. Got to know of it from a letter he wrote to a squadmate. (Now they are both dead :() Oddly enough, I had known that Bartley was alive at the time from corresponding emails with his daughter, - she was looking for info about former squadmates!
Bartley was a bit of a celebrity, - BoB guy, crack pilot and test pilot, married to a moviestar (Deborah Kerr) and so on.
He ended up working for the BBC AFAIK, and died some6+ years ago.
-
Hi Guppy,
>you can see in the 38 Group Histories a disctinct difference in opinion where the 38 trained guys liked the 38s and didn't want to transition to 51 "Spam cans" and the single engined trained guys welcomed the change. It was interesting to see that the 370th FG pilots who'd transitioned from Jugs to 38s, weren't thrilled when they transitioned from the 38s to 51s in March of 45.
The reluctance to part with whatever fighter one has been learned to fly and fight in is purely psychological and (up to a point) has nothing to do with its objective qualities. It's absolutely necessary for survival to concentrate on the strong points of one own's mount and devise tactics that avoid the weak points, so every fighter pilot will naturally tend to tell you that his mount has superior strengths and only minor weaknesses that, if the right tactics are used, don't matter much.
When combat pilots consider their fighter superior to any other, that's the same way of guarding one's mental health that leads test pilots to attribute any fatal crash to a "pilot error" every time. Of course, the personally would not have made the fatal error. Tom Wolfe has described this very impressively in "The Right Stuff".
Additionally, that so many squadrons preferred their current ride over any other was very much a case "better the devil you know". Having to acquire a new set of skills and tactics for a new fighter requires time, and during the necessary period of trial and error, every pilot is objectively endangered, so transitions are not taken easy.
(Of course, there is a point when the inferiority of a fighter becomes so obvious that the illusion of superiority breaks down. This had happened to the squadrons in the Pacific that flew P-39 and P-40 fighters - they couldn't get the P-38 soon enough.)
>For the obvious reasons, the 38 with the twin engines and range was the preferred ride of the Pacific fighter drivers with all that overwater flying. Something about that 2nd engine made a difference and they certainly had confidence in the 38s ability to compete with the Japanese planes they encountered.
Well, I'd say this was 100% a matter of confidence since no pilot in the theatre knew anything about the actual survival rates. Reputation and reality don't necessarily coincede. The Grumman Navy aircraft had a reputation for survivability, but the one Navy plane that really can be recoginzed in the post-war analysis as way tougher than the rest was the innocent-looking Douglas SBD. Likewise, the B-24 had a reputation for fragility compared to the supposedly more robust B-17, but the numbers show it was just as good or even better. The reputation the planes gained in the theatres were based on squadron-level experience, reinforced by hearsay, and comparison to other aircraft was mostly done in individual mock-fights which turned into rumours for all that were not directly involved.
OK, that's my take on the psychology of aircraft comparisons and the resulting difficulty of extracting valid information from historical opionion :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Agreed Hohun, and I do think it speaks to what happened in the ETO as the confidence in the 38 went downhill fast with the high alt troubles. The guys operating them in the ETO til the end were operating them in the ground attack role so the high alt woes were clearly less of a concern.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Well, I'd say this was 100% a matter of confidence since no pilot in the theatre knew anything about the actual survival rates. Reputation and reality don't necessarily coincede. The Grumman Navy aircraft had a reputation for survivability, but the one Navy plane that really can be recoginzed in the post-war analysis as way tougher than the rest was the innocent-looking Douglas SBD. Likewise, the B-24 had a reputation for fragility compared to the supposedly more robust B-17, but the numbers show it was just as good or even better. The reputation the planes gained in the theatres were based on squadron-level experience, reinforced by hearsay, and comparison to other aircraft was mostly done in individual mock-fights which turned into rumours for all that were not directly involved.
OK, that's my take on the psychology of aircraft comparisons and the resulting difficulty of extracting valid information from historical opionion :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
I agree. There is comfort in the thought that if you develop engine trouble you always have a back up to get you home.
ack-ack
-
Luftwaffe Victories Against Lockheed P-38 Lightning (http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/aces1/doc/victories-germany-ww2-claims-p-38.pdf) (PDF)
This list is compiled from the loss lists presented on Tony Wood's Combat Claims & Casualties Lists (http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm)
It should be noted that these lists are incomplete and that the claims, even though they are confirmed, may not mean an actual loss.
YMMV
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Luftwaffe Victories Against Lockheed P-38 Lightning (http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/aces1/doc/victories-germany-ww2-claims-p-38.pdf) (PDF)
This list is compiled from the loss lists presented on Tony Wood's Combat Claims & Casualties Lists (http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm)
It should be noted that these lists are incomplete and that the claims, even though they are confirmed, may not mean an actual loss.
YMMV
Interesting stuff. I have the histories of the 82nd and 1st FGs who flew in the MTO, but not the 14th.
Just checking on a couple of the early dates.
On November 28, 1942 the LW claimed 7 P38s. Neither the 1st or 82nd flew that day so they'd all have to be 14th FG losses.
On December 3, 1942 the LW claimed 9 P38s. The 1st FG lost 3 that day and the 82nd didn't fly, so again it's left to the 14th to have taken those other 6 losses.
It's fair to say that the 14th took the brunt of the losses during that time as they were pulled out of combat in late January 43. They were the first 38 unit in combat and were flying ground attack/support sorties and lost over half their pilots from November to the end of January 43.
-
I haven't gone through many of these claims personally. However, some others have and they run into problems where the paper work with the claims was submitted on a different date then the actual 'kill' itself or where dates some how were mis-reported (dates in log books were different from the official confirmation etc..). Or it could be 'over claiming'. I will leave this up to the professional historians and researchers. See my post above in regards to Bühligen P-38 claims.
I just buy the books and read them... :D
-
Originally posted by gripen
Knegel,
Comparison at high altitude has been posted here several times. If you are unable to use search, here (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/digidoc/report/tn/44/NACA-TN-1044.PDF) is direct link. Basicly same phenomena can be found from the Widewing's post above. Comparisons on critical mach number has been posted here several times as well.
gripen
gripen,
yes, i did read this, nothing new so far. I only can repeat, the low critical mach number of the P38 is a well known handycap, nevertheless it could climb higher than the common german and japanese fighters of its time.
So we have a real handycap and a real advantage. I still guess that between 20000 and 30000ft the relative performence of the P38 had its peak. Of course the pilot had to know the advantage and disadvantage of his plane.
btw, why the multi-role ability was never exceeded by any other WWII fighter??
Didnt the P47´s, the FW190´s and the 110(410)´s did the same and particually more??
At least the 190 was a incredible workhorse, from fighter, nightfighter, torpedobomber, divebomber, armned with different rockets, bombs and guns and even with a plane as Bomb below it.
Could the P38 do anything more??
-
25.9.1944 Lt. Focke, Wulf ? :D
-C+
-
Originally posted by Knegel
yes, i did read this, nothing new so far. I only can repeat, the low critical mach number of the P38 is a well known handycap, nevertheless it could climb higher than the common german and japanese fighters of its time.
I have no idea what you are trying to argue; you wanted see comparison on high altitude maneuverability and I posted it (once again). If you look the dive limit chart which Widewing posted above, you can see that left side of the flight enevelope is limited by Clmax (normal stall) and right side is limited by critical mach number (resulting buffeting, tuck under or what ever).
Originally posted by Knegel
So we have a real handycap and a real advantage. I still guess that between 20000 and 30000ft the relative performence of the P38 had its peak. Of course the pilot had to know the advantage and disadvantage of his plane.
Most of late WWII fighters had FTH above or around 20k and most of them had higher limits of the flight envelope above 20k.
gripen
-
Granted that real world advatage does us no good here. Where no one climbs above 20K. Most of the bomber pilots don't even bother too. Where 90% of the fighting is done below 10K.
-
P38 also went lower in the business of sweeps and ground attacks. Well a ground attack in RL is usually near to the ground...:D
-
Originally posted by Knegel
btw, why the multi-role ability was never exceeded by any other WWII fighter??
Didnt the P47´s, the FW190´s and the 110(410)´s did the same and particually more??
At least the 190 was a incredible workhorse, from fighter, nightfighter, torpedobomber, divebomber, armned with different rockets, bombs and guns and even with a plane as Bomb below it.
Could the P38 do anything more??
P-38s could, and sometimes did, carry two 2,000 lb bombs. They could alternately haul 310 gallon drop tanks. They were able to haul two 1,000 pound bombs and ten 5" Holy Moses rockets. Later P-47s could haul up to 2,500 lb of bombs, far less than the P-38 could manage (P-38 pylons were rated for 2,300 lb, not to exceed 2.5G positive loading). Which leads to a beef I have with the game... Planes often pull 6G and 1,000 lb/500 kilo bombs are not ripped off of the pylons and racks....
Comparing the Bf 110 or Me 410 comes up short because neither of these stood any chance against single-engine fighters, whereas the P-38 was quite capable.
P-38s were used for photo-recon (F-4 and F-5 series). Droop-snoot P-38s flew as bomber leaders and frequently led large formations of P-38s on level bombing missions. P-38s did yeoman service as long range escorts. Long range interdiction. Close ground support. Triple A suppression. Tactical bombing. Anti-ship missions. Bomber and fighter interception. Radar equipped P-38s were used to guide heavy bombers in the pathfinder role, bombing through overcast on command. Nightfighter (P-38M).
I can think of no other true fighter that was readily adapted successfully to so many different roles.
I agree that the FW190 series was widely adapted to various roles. As marvelous as the 190s were, they couldn't perform in as many roles as the P-38 did.
As I stated, no other WWII fighter exceeded the P-38 in multi-role capability.
My regards,
Widewing
-
apart from the level bombing, i think F4Us did most of whats on that list & it could go from a carier deck, so maybe a tie?
Were there F4U photo planes? I've never heard about them....
-
The highest number of Droop-Snoots I have seen sourced state there were only around a max of 90 converted/produced. The first operational sortie was flown in April '44. Most ended up with the 8th AF until just after D-day where they were all transferred out to 9th AF or other commands (10th, 14th, 15th) etc...
They didn't just lead P-38s, the 56th (P-47s) was lead by them on a few sorties as well.
However, I don't think there's anything about the Droop-Snoots that significantly contributed to the P-38s 'multi-role capability'. The P-38 certainly didn't become a worth while level bomber as a result.
The P-38s most significant roles were as fighter, fighter-bomber, and Recce. In those 3 roles it wasn't 'the best' of any other aircraft that flew those same missions. In fact for the cost of 1 P-38 you could get a Typhoon and a P-51.
-
Originally posted by gripen
I have no idea what you are trying to argue; you wanted see comparison on high altitude maneuverability and I posted it (once again). If you look the dive limit chart which Widewing posted above, you can see that left side of the flight enevelope is limited by Clmax (normal stall) and right side is limited by critical mach number (resulting buffeting, tuck under or what ever).
Most of late WWII fighters had FTH above or around 20k and most of them had higher limits of the flight envelope above 20k.
gripen
Hi again,
i dont saw a complete comparison of manouverability, only about the CLmax and mach related problems and nothing regarding german planes!
I have no doubt that the heavy wingloaded P38 with its slow initial rollratio got problems with any german fighter in a tight fight, as long as the german planes had power and dont got suprised. Imho only in high alt the P38´s had a real performence advantage, specialy vs the FW190A´s, due to its relative good high alt climb and speed. In low/med alt the smal bandwith of manouverspeed was wider, but it still had a much bigger liftload than the 109F/G and 190A4/5/6/7 and the german planes had a better relative performence there(not only the P38 got better manouverable down low, the german 1942-43 planes got a even bigger advantage cause their engines was better in low/med alt than above 20000ft).
I dont talk about late war, i already wrote several times that i think mid 1944-45 the P38´s got probelms regarding their performence in europe, i talk about 1942 to early 44. In this years the P38´s simply could outclimb and outrun most german planes in high alt, not a bad advantage for a fighter and the Vmax of the fighters in general wasnt as high as in 1944/45, so the high alt highspeed probelms wasnt as extreme while normal normal flight´s.
Hi Widewing,
The 110 wasnt a fighter??
The 110 played its role as long range and escort fighter for a pretty long time and they wasnt that bad while this. The 110 could carry as much or more bombs than the P38 and when it started to get obsolete as daylight fighter, it played a very successfull role as fighter bomber and night fighter.
Same like the P38 it got trouble with the single engine fighters in the west, but in the east and MTO it got used successful till mid/late 43. From 1941 onward the 110 mainly got used as fighter bomber and long range fighter, same we can say about the P38 in late 1943, when it started to get obsolete as real fighter it got to be a fighter bomber or long range fighter etc. To say the 110 wasnt a fighter is the same like to say the P38 wasnt a fighter, in 1939-41 the 110 did "outclass" most fighters of the world in a similar way like the P38 did in 1941-43.
Even if we dont count the 110, i still think the 190´s played as many different roles as the P38, not allways the same the P38 could fulfill, but others the P38 couldnt. The 190 got used as nightfighter(with and without radar), as torpedo bomber, did carry a bomber as bomb(what bombload is this?), could act as real Stuka and fighter bomber(different rockets, guns and bombs), got used as recognize plane, long range fighter bomber, interceptor (many different guns and rockets and special plating) and of course as a real fighter, if we count the Ta152H as FW190 even as high alt fighter and there was some different performence kits to enable more power in different altitudes(MW50, GM1, special C3 injection, higher boost in low level for fighter bombers). The 190 dont had the range, neighter the bomb load, the P38 couldnt divebomb, dont had a torpedo, dont had different gun sets, dont had different plating sets, dont had different wingspans, dont had air to air rockets(afaik).
Only my opinon!
Greetings,
-
Forget the 110 for a minute, the Ju-88 flew every thing the P-38 did. It flew as bomber, fighter-bomber, dive bomber, Recce, night fight, heavy fighter etc... It even flew as a pathfinder (lotse). The P-38 may have been a better fighter then the 110 or Ju-88 but it's multi-role capability wasn't any different then any number of other aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
As I stated, no other WWII fighter exceeded the P-38 in multi-role capability.
My regards,
Widewing
You forgot to add its occasional use as an air ambulance and transport plane.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Knegel
i dont saw a complete comparison of manouverability, only about the CLmax and mach related problems and nothing regarding german planes!
There is two planes which had NACA 23000 series profiles, there is no reason to believe that the German planes with similar profiles behaved radically different.
Originally posted by Knegel
Imho only in high alt the P38´s had a real performence advantage, specialy vs the FW190A´s, due to its relative good high alt climb and speed...
The German planes could fight vertical at high altitude and had an option to leave combat at will. The only practical advantage for the P-38 being the climb which according to pilot's stories was often used as defensive maneuver. The speed difference was more or less marginal.
At lower altitudes the P-38 could fight vertical and that is the way the most succesfull P-38 pilots used it.
gripen
-
The 190 dont had the range, neighter the bomb load, the P38 couldnt divebomb, dont had a torpedo, dont had different gun sets
I have pictures of a P-38-F dropping an 1,927 dummy torpedo in a 1942 test demonstration, if it would have been needed to drop torps, it could have.
As far as different gun sets go , the 38 could have had multiple gun arrangements if they were requested. Just a few that i have read about, and/or seen pictures of are ( 4X.50 with 2X20mm ) (8x.50cal) ( 6X.50cal) . Ofcourse none of these were put into production ,but not because the 38 wasnt versatile enought to do it, but because there really wasnt a need for it. Imho the 38 was one of the most adaptable planes of the war .
-
"i dont saw a complete comparison of manouverability, only about the CLmax and mach related problems and nothing regarding german planes!"
"There is two planes which had NACA 23000 series profiles, there is no reason to believe that the German planes with similar profiles behaved radically different."
The profile is only a part of the equation and as such cannot be used for comparison of dive performance.
Lockheed 22 P-38 Lightning NACA 23016 / NACA 4412
Focke Wulf Fw 190 Wurger NACA 23015.3 / NACA 23009
Messerschmitt Bf 109G Gustav NACA 2R1 14.2 / NACA 2R1 11.35
The 4412 is probably better in slow speeds but it can create different effects in high speed dives than 23016, although it was mentioned somewhere that NACA windtunnel tests helped to solve some problems in P-38's dive behaviour, but I couldn't find more about this at NACA archives. The Cl vs AoA of 4412 seems to be pretty much the same as with 23016 so it does not create any radical behaviour in stall region as they both seem to peak at 16 deg. Of course the combination of two kinds of profiles makes it more complicated to estimate the combined behaviour.
Interesting pages:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1937/naca-report-563/index.cgi?page0001.gif
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1933/naca-report-460/index.cgi?page0001.gif
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html
-C+
-
Hm... The wing without fuselage of the P-38 did fine up to mach 0,74-0,75 at low Cl (see the link below). But with the standard fuselage the airflow was accelerated between the booms reducing the critical mach number to around mach 0,68. Same way the acceleration of the airflow between the booms reduced the Clmax (basicly local Reynolds number increase). Again the link (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7c24/index.cgi?page0023.gif) has been posted here several times.
While the wing profiles of the P-38 were quite old fashioned and thick, these were just partial reasons for the high altitude problems, the main reasons for the low critical mach number and the decrease of the Clmax being the shape of the fuselage and booms. In the case of the single seat German fighters, the profiles were a bit thinner and the wing was mostly in clean airflow.
gripen