Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: DiabloTX on November 28, 2007, 04:26:58 PM
-
Thunderbolt and Lightning...
Thunderbolt and Lightning...2 ways of saying the same thing.
Never put the 2 names together before.
No wonder the Germans had an electrifying experience against them.
30 years of reading about WWII aviation and I never made the connection.
Huh.
Discuss.
-
Germans regarded the P-38 as a subpar plane.
P-47 didn't have the range to escort B17s in 1942 and 1943.
-
Leave it to Aquashrimp to completely miss the point of the post...dot dot dot
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Germans regarded the P-38 as a subpar plane.
Can't wait to see the sources for this :)
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Germans regarded the P-38 as a subpar plane.
P-47 didn't have the range to escort B17s in 1942 and 1943.
Some Germans thought the P-38 was an easy fight.
The P-47 broke the back of the Luftwaffe, the P-51 took the credit.
-
You would think they would ave been the lightningbolt and the thunder. I personally have never seen a bolt of thunder.
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
You would think they would ave been the lightningbolt and the thunder. I personally have never seen a bolt of thunder.
From Merriam Webster online... For what it's worth.
Main Entry:
thun·der·bolt
Date:
15th century
1: a single discharge of lightning with the accompanying thunder.
2: a person or thing that resembles lightning in suddenness, effectiveness, or destructive power.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
2: a person or thing that resembles lightning in suddenness, effectiveness, or destructive power.
So Warren Wallace should say he's made of Thunderbolts?:rofl
(Sorry, couldn't resist...reference material for those who don't get it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYPkWe0GqB4&feature=related
Kid cracks me up!)
-
I did not know that definition. Thanks for the ehjumacation.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Can't wait to see the sources for this :)
Yes, you can. You've seen them all before.
-
I always thought about the relation. Thunderbolt... the sound of the attack and, Lightning...... the flash of the attack. I',m sure the two names had nothing to do with each other.
And as much as i love the Lightning as an air superiority fighter as far as i know the Lightning was a disapointment in Europe. As an attack plane that was different. It was one of the most versatile as i know.
In the Pacific of course it was a complete monster. And ate Jap planes for breakfast. Due to it's huge speed difference, climbing ability, decent maneaverability, amazing firepower that would rip Jap planes in half with one burst, and teamwork, it was one of the reasons Japan lost. The Germans had planes that were much more of a match however.
-
Thunderbolt and lightning-very very frightening me-
Galileo,galileo,
Galileo galileo
Galileo figaro-magnifico-
Did the British choose the name for the P-47?
-
They did for the P-38 and P-51. I don't know about the P-47.
Conversely, the Royal Navy changed their name for the F4F to Wildcat to match the US Navy's name.
Japan's J2M was named "Thuderbolt" too, but in Japanese.
The Ki-84 was "Hurricane" or "Gale" depending on the translation.
EDIT:
I vaguely recall that the Meteor was supposed to be named Thunderbolt, but when that name was given to the P-47 it was redesignated Meteor. I could be confusing Thunderbolt with Tempest though.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Thunderbolt and lightning-very very frightening me-
Galileo,galileo,
Galileo galileo
Galileo figaro-magnifico-
Did the British choose the name for the P-47?
Don't think so but I'm glad they did for the P-38. Atlanta doesn't sound as cool as Lightning.
ack-ack
-
I think the P-47 was named the Thunderbolt by the Yanks, and the Brits originaly wanted to call the Typhoon the Thunderbolt but changed their mind once the Jug had been christened.
-
Thunderball sounds better to me ;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Some Germans thought the P-38 was an easy fight.
The P-47 broke the back of the Luftwaffe, the P-51 took the credit.
The poor schmucks on the ground didnt think it was "easy" when it was screaming down on them spitting lead, bombs, and 5" rockets. Also the P-38 was very usefull as a photo-reco airplane.
In the end nothing the Germans did mattered. As good an outfit as they were the Luftwaffe was simply swamped by an almost never ending supply of Allied machines and trained pilots. Its actually pretty amazing the Germans held out as long as they did.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I vaguely recall that the Meteor was supposed to be named Thunderbolt, but when that name was given to the P-47 it was redesignated Meteor. I could be confusing Thunderbolt with Tempest though.
Thats right
Edit, just found this: "The name *Thunderbolt* for the P-47B was originally thought up by C. Hart Miller, Republic's Director of Military Contracts. The company approved his choice, and the name stuck."
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
The poor schmucks on the ground didnt think it was "easy" when it was screaming down on them spitting lead, bombs, and 5" rockets. Also the P-38 was very usefull as a photo-reco airplane.
In the end nothing the Germans did mattered. As good an outfit as they were the Luftwaffe was simply swamped by an almost never ending supply of Allied machines and trained pilots. Its actually pretty amazing the Germans held out as long as they did.
Well it kind of mattered what they did, seeing as how thousands of our pilots might still be alive today if they hadn't fallen in combat with the Luftwaffe.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Well it kind of mattered what they did, seeing as how thousands of our pilots might still be alive today if they hadn't fallen in combat with the Luftwaffe.
Aqua all he's saying is the Germans were going to get their butt kicked from the start, so their resistance was futile. Don't be getting all sensitive, we know they died, but he ain't even talking about that.
-
Thunder is loud, thunder is impressive...
but it's Lightning that does all the work.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
The poor schmucks on the ground didnt think it was "easy" when it was screaming down on them spitting lead, bombs, and 5" rockets. Also the P-38 was very usefull as a photo-reco airplane.
In the end nothing the Germans did mattered. As good an outfit as they were the Luftwaffe was simply swamped by an almost never ending supply of Allied machines and trained pilots. Its actually pretty amazing the Germans held out as long as they did.
My Landlord in Germany was a FlaK gunner as a 15 year old HJ at the Panzer Factory in Kassel near the end of the war... He called the P38 a twin tailed devil, and said that low level attacks by p-38s were the most fearful moments of the war for him. So I agree that as a GA aircraft the P-38 is well suited. Based on my MA sorties, I don't like to get into a A2A fight in a P-38 unless I have a big E advantage. In a turning fight the p-38 is soon toast.
-
Originally posted by MajIssue
In a turning fight the p-38 is soon toast.
It depends on the pilot's skill level in the P-38.
ack-ack
-
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.
-
what might not be difficult for one person, can be a complete nightmare for the next! and its true
-
Franz Stiegler 28 victory ace
"[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."
Johannes Steinhoff Kommodore JG 77
"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 in 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 these dangerous apparitions started firing tracer, and was essential to prevent them maneuvring into a position from which they could bring their guns to bear.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
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.
An excerpt from Top Guns, by Joe Foss and Matthew Brennan... The story is called "Big John"
"One of our last P-38 missions was a flight to protect bombers on a mission near Berlin.. We were flying Top Cover..... We were bounced by 16 long nose Fw-190's... A flight of 4 overflew us and slowed down... I looked up at a German plane... The pilot was looking down at me as he eased ahead and close above me into sure death, unless he could take violent evasive action.... He split S'ed and I followed him.. He nearly got out of sight because if the P-38's high-speed compressability problem... Finally he turned into me and I cut across to close with him...
"Then the fight started...."
He was a fantastic, wild, talented pilot who pulled all the tricks i had ever seen... But finally I got into a tight Lufberry with him and used my clover-leaf surprise to get a few strikes... None of them harmed his power unit....
When his methyl injection was gone, he dived to the deck and dropped into a tar pit that was 500 feet deep and big enough to turn a fighter in... I got a few more strikes on him... A portion of his vertical stabilizer and one wingtip flew off..... As I was getting low on fuel, I headed back to England... I looked back over my shoulder to see the Fw-190D going in the opposite direction, wagging his wings...."
A few years ago, the American Fighter Aces had thier annual reunion at Maxwell AFB in Alabama....
"Ace Gabreski saw me and called me over to his little group... He introduced me as the highest scoring P-38 Ace in Europe... Whn I shook hands with German General Adolf Galland, I said "Adolf, did u ever shoot down a P-38?"
He replied, "Yah I shoot down 8."
I proceeded to tell the group about this dogfight over the tar pit.. I was using my hands and looking down as I described this engagement... When I looked up, he was pale white...
He said, "You son of a *****! You dom neer keel me dat day!"
Holy Mackeral!!! All the pilots that heard our conversation bellowed their surprise, including myself... Adolf wouldnt let me out of his sight..."
It also has the story of the mock duel Lowell had with a RAF pilot.
The Group, 364th FG, had just recieved P-38L's just before the P-51's arrived...
"On a day that we were "stood down", General Eisenhower arranged for one of the top English aces Wing Commander Donaldson, to come to Honnington and show slides of English Spitfires....
S/Ldr. Edward Mortlock (Teddy) Donaldson, a Cranwell graduate took over Command of No 151 Squadron flying Hurricane's in November 1939. He shot down 5½ enemy aero planes up until August 1940. He survived the war ending up as an air Commodore with C.B, C.B.E.,D.S.O. and A.F.C.
After the briefing, Donaldson said,
"If one of u bloody bastards has enough guts, Ill fly mock combat above ur field and show u how easily this Spit XIV can whip your best pilots ass..."
The entire group started clapping and hollered, "Big John, Big John!"
That was me, so I asked him, "What is your fuel load?"
He replied, "Half Petrol."
"What is your comabt load?"
He replied, "No ammo."
We agreed to cross over the field at 5,000 feet, then anything goes... I took off in a new P-38L.... I climbed very high, so when I dove down to cross the field, my speed would be close to 600 mph...... When Donaldson and I crossed, I zoomed straight up while watching him try and get on my tail... When he did a wing-over from loss of speed, I was several thousand feet above him, so I quickly got on his tail... Naturally, he turned into a full-power right lLufberry as I closed in... I frustrated that with my clover-leaf, and if we'd had "hot guns," he would have been shot down.
He came over the field with me on his tail and cut throttle, dropped flaps, and split-S'ed from about 1,000 feet... I followed him with the new flaps, banking only 45 degrees, below the tree tops... All I had to do was move over behind his Spit again.. He was apparently surprised...."
ack-ack
-
Gotta pull out old reliable again. P38J-10, 370th FG, pre dive flaps and power assisted controls.
Gets bounced by 109s, gets in a 1 v 1, still lugging his 500 pounders, out turns the 109 and shoots him down. A relatively low time 38 pilot too having only 2 months of time in it as the 370th transitioned from Jugs when they got to England in May 44. This is July 44.
Lt. Royal Madden, July 31, 1944
“Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left. I then made a vertical right turn and observed Blue Two below and close and Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me. I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.
We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet. This boy was good and he had me plenty worried as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection. I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst. There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off. He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.
Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight.”
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
An excerpt from Top Guns, by Joe Foss and Matthew Brennan... The story is called "Big John"
It also has the story of the mock duel Lowell had with a RAF pilot.
ack-ack
Please explain "clover-leaf" I have never heard that before?
Great excerpts also, thanks.
-
Originally posted by FBplmmr
Please explain "clover-leaf" I have never heard that before?
Great excerpts also, thanks.
Cloverleaf - The cloverleaf is composed of four identical maneuvers, each begun in a vertical plane rotated 90 degrees from the preceding one. One enters the cloverleaf by performing a loop and executing a 90 degree roll in either direction. This patter continues until the original flight path is resumed.
It works very well in this game but it does take some practice time to ensure that you've got the maneuver down correctly. Effective against planes like the Spitfire and N1K2 at low speeds where the P-38 can take advantage of its superior low speed handling characteristics.
When I get home from work, I'll post a more detailed write up about the maneuver.
ack-ack
-
Ugh, not the Lowell story! :)
Gotta be careful quoting that one AKAK as it's suspect, in particular the Galland part. 38s were gone from 364th before the D9s appeared. Lowell at best would have been in a J-25 as the Ls didn't arrive until October 44 and 364th was out of 38s by then. problem is the D9s didn't show until October or so too.
-
I know, sometimes I give in to my inner trickster and throw out that stinky bait for the Luftwhiners.
ack-ack
-
"By July, Doolittle confessed to Arnold that the P-38 was a second-rate fighter when compared to the P-47 and P-51, even though attempts had been made to improve its performance. Spaatz, however seemed confident that the P-38 could be modified to make it a first-class fighter again, but admitted to Arnold that sizeable improvements would be necessary. As a result of these difficulties the AAF withdrew the Lightning from VIII Fighter Command operations in mid-summer, 1944"
Development Of The Long-Range Escort Fighter (http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/numbered_studies/467715.pdf)
-
I'd love to see some video of this maneuver.
-
"If one of u bloody bastards has enough guts, Ill fly mock combat above ur field and show u how easily this Spit XIV can whip your best pilots ass..."
Spoken like a true Englishman... :D
-
Originally posted by clerick
I'd love to see some video of this maneuver.
Do a search of the boards and you should find one from Widewing that he posted I think about a year ago. If you look far enough back in the AH Training board, you may stumble across 5 that I made against various planes but those were AH1 films.
ack-ack
-
Ack-Ack, both of those stories you posted have been time and time again proven false here on the bbs.
The first story, it was shown that Galland did not have access to a D-9 during that timeframe. That fight never took place.
Lowell was a known pathological liar and a braggart. But he was an ace. He beat up on an old Battle of Britian pilot who had not been in combat for years.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Do a search of the boards and you should find one from Widewing that he posted I think about a year ago. If you look far enough back in the AH Training board, you may stumble across 5 that I made against various planes but those were AH1 films.
ack-ack
Found Widewing's posts but the link is dead. Maybe he can repost it please.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Ack-Ack, both of those stories you posted have been time and time again proven false here on the bbs.
The first story, it was shown that Galland did not have access to a D-9 during that timeframe. That fight never took place.
Lowell was a known pathological liar and a braggart. But he was an ace. He beat up on an old Battle of Britian pilot who had not been in combat for years.
Ahhh...my first bite. I knew the luftwhiners couldn't resist such a stinky bait. Too bad though the Fish and Game Dept. has deemed you too small to keep and I have to through you back for far bigger game.
ack-ack
-
As much as i love the P-38. (It's all i fly) Some of these stories sound a liiiiiiiiitle suspect.
-
"General Randy Patriot once took on 15 Messershet 373's in his P-38 and destroyed all of them using the franky tulip maneuver. On interview the German pilots said that the P-38 was the best looking and bestest fighter plane they have ever encountered. General Patriot then went on to destroy 12 Tiger tanks using the powerful gun package in the nose of his P-38. It is said that the hardened SS troops manning the tanks were so scared at the sight of the twin engined devil machine that they broke down and cried for their mothers. It is said that the F-22 is based upon the design of the P-38 but is not quite as good.
General Patriot once took on the entire RAF in mock combat above RAF Little Bollocks and defeated them all, the RAF commander then said "you bugger! you flew awesome! right on! mate!"
-
Nice "story" furball. :furious It's obvious that it's a lie because the australian soap "neighbours" was not introduced to the UK until 1986; hence the word "mate" had not acquired popular use by the british public until the early 1990s. You sir are a liar!!:mad:
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Some Germans thought the P-38 was an easy fight.
REALLY wanna see your sources for this one.
In most parts of the war the p38 was the primary fighter and the pilots knew how to use them.
In fact, if I remember right, many of the top WWII top aces for allies were P-38 pilots. The Axis feared the USAAF because that was what the US were dominating in, the US ruled the skies so to speak, and they did it in the p38 for the most part.
-
The opinions of the Luftwaffe pilots varied greatly. What they thought of the P-38 depended upon the circumstances they encountered it under. A German pilot who bounced group of P-38's flown by green pilots over Germany, with numerical superiority, was likely to have a lower opinion of the P-38 than a German pilot who got his bellybutton handed to him by Graham, Morris, Olds, Ilfrey, or Lowell.
The P-38, properly flown and maintained was a match for anything short of a 262 or a 163.
It is true, of course, that SOME German pilots thought the P-38 was an easy mark. It is also true that SOME German pilots would rather sandpaper a tiger's bellybutton in a phone booth than fight a P-38 on even terms.
This argument has been hashed through on these boards ad nauseum. The P-38 was not a dominant plane for the 8th AF. But neither was it an easy mark for the Luftwaffe when flown by a competent pilot.
-
The opinion of a JG27 or JG53 veteran 109G-6 pilot who encountered a new P38F pilot in combat for the first time, would differ greatly from a new 109G-10 pilot coming up against a veteran 38 pilot in a J-25.
It's as simple as that. Opinions would very. I can quote wartime P38 pilots stating at the time that they felt like they could out turn and out fly any 109 or 190. That's without the benefit of hindsight.
One thing that does remain constant then and in AH. The pilot makes a huge difference.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Ahhh...my first bite. I knew the luftwhiners couldn't resist such a stinky bait. Too bad though the Fish and Game Dept. has deemed you too small to keep and I have to through you back for far bigger game.
ack-ack
I don't know what your talking about. Apparently you're drunk again. You knew the stories were bogus, yet you still posted them. Your credibility is zero.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
You knew the stories were bogus, yet you still posted them. Your credibility is zero.
Says the Trolling Thread-jacking poster...Quite amusing.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I don't know what your talking about. Apparently you're drunk again. You knew the stories were bogus, yet you still posted them. Your credibility is zero.
LMAO...like you're anyone to talk about one's credibility. Each post you make is a shining example of someone that clearly has their head up where the sun doesn't shine. You have about as much credibility on these boards as VOSS or Mr. Black.
Now be a good little boy and return that hook to me, I need it for the other little fishies.
ack-ack
-
ackack 2 - aquashrimp 0 (nil, zip, zero, zilch, nada)
-
Despite the P-38s work in the Pacific Theatre, I've read repeatedly that it's engines just didn't work very reliably in Europe. However, they apparently did just fine in north Africa.
-
Originally posted by Yossarian
Despite the P-38s work in the Pacific Theatre, I've read repeatedly that it's engines just didn't work very reliably in Europe. However, they apparently did just fine in north Africa.
Read up on Europe. The 8th AF had serious issues with fuel, as well as maintenance issues. I posted a write up by Lockheed test pilot Tony Levier on his findings during a tour of the P-38 groups in the 8th AF.
By the way, it wasn't the cold weather in Europe that was an issue. Unless of course you think it is colder in Europe (England, Germany, France, etc) than it is in Alaska, and the Aleutians. The P-38 was the top plane in the Aleutians, and they reported no real cold weather issues, and certainly NOT to the extent the 8th AF did.
-
It may very well be colder over Europe at 30,000 feet than it is over the Aluetians at 15,000. I know that operations were flown at lower altitudes in the Pacific, how high did they fly in Alaska?
-
Everyone seems to have forgotten that the P-38 was a primary fighter in the MTO, escorting bombers into Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Germany (several trips to Berlin too). It proved as reliable there as the P-51, not suffering the engine failure issues seen when deployed with the 8th AF.
You cannot isolate the 8th Air Force experience and point to the aircraft as the cause. You must evaluate what was going on the 8th AF that led to the problems.
Historians have done that and concluded that the problems were related to fuel formulation, which uniquely broke down in the Allison's intake manifold, with the anti-knock additive coming out of solution. Doolittle specified a specific fuel formulation for P-38 groups, which promptly eliminated fuel related engine damage. A second problem was that the 8th Air Force did not make any effort to train pilots in high altitude flight operations. Stateside RTUs were training pilots to fly and fight at 20,000 feet and below. Compounding the training problem was that replacement pilots rarely had any experience flying twin-engine aircraft. Most pilots arriving in Britain were trained on single-engine fighters, most getting their time in P-40s.
Now all of the above doesn't account for the P-38's design flaws. Things like a totally ineffective cockpit heater, single generator, manual oil cooler, radiator and intercooler doors; they all contributed to the numerous problems. These flaws could only be overcome, or at least mitigated by training. In the 8th AF, there was no genuine training for P-38 groups. Meanwhile, the 8th AF set up an entire training program for P-51 pilots, including combat training at "Clobber College".
Down in Italy, the 15th AF had set up a P-38 Training Command to get P-38 pilots up to speed rapidly. Plus, the fuel used in the MTO was formulated differently (much of the 8th's gas was refined by the Brits).
When the P-38L began arriving in the ETO and MTO, it arrived with automatic cooler doors, different engines with revised intake manifolds (which prevented fuel break-down), a more effective heater, dive recovery flaps, hydraulic powered ailerons and a myriad of other improvements that made the Lightning a first-rate fighter in the region.
The fact remains that the improvements were too late for the 8th AF, who never cared for the P-38 anyway. However, these new P-38s were gladly received in Italy and earned their keep flying with three of the 15th's six fighter groups. These P-38 groups were in combat up until the surrender.
The problem was one of attitude. The USAAF had a deeply ingrained bias against the P-38 and to a lesser degree, the P-47. They weren't the epitome of what the Generals thought a fighter should be. Indeed, these Generals, who became known within the USAAF as the Mustang Mafia, were in charge of the USAAF Fighter Command after the war ended. As a result, the P-38s were scrapped or sold off. P-47s were stuck in reserve and Air Guard units. The net result was that the primary ground support aircraft in place at the beginning of the Korean War were tired, old P-51Ds. While they dominated the Korean Yaks and Lavochkins, they suffered huge losses to ground fire due to the frailty of their cooling systems. Meanwhile, the Marines and Navy were flying the far more durable F4U-4, F4U-4B and F4U-5 (as well as the awesome AD-1 Skyraider). In October of 1950, the Navy offered the USAF 312 mothballed F4U-1Ds. The Air Force scoffed at the notion. Another 200 P-51 pilots would die before the surviving Mustangs were retired and replaced by the F-80 and F-84. Until the Inchon landings opened airfields on the Korean peninsular, the F-80s and F-84s had to operate out of Japan. They lacked the range to loiter over combat areas in Korea. Thus, the P-51s and a few dozen F-82 (twin Mustangs) were the primary support fighters.
When one evaluates the performance of a fighter in a theater or zone of combat, one must look at the entire picture. A localized snapshot can be extremely misleading.
My regards,
Widewing
-
^^^^^ EXACTLY
Again, the USAAF declined multiple Lockheed improvements for the P-38, not the least of which was the unit power control, which would have prevented a great many of the problems with the P-38 engines brought on by pilots who were not trained well enough.
Admittedly, Lockheed was slow to develop some things, the P-38 should have been MUCH further along than it was. However, the USAAF had told Lockheed they didn't want more than a hundred P-38's. Then, suddenly, the USAAF wanted the P-38 so badly that they would not allow Lockheed to stop, or even slow production to any real extent, even if the slow down or short stoppage would result in a much better plane.
The P-38K, with more powerful engines and better props was tested in early 1943, before there were ANY long range escort missions. Col. Ben Kelsey signed off on the dive flaps in early 1943. The unit power control was developed in 1943. But only the dive flaps made it into production, and that was delayed for almost a year.
In any event, only the 8th AF suffered serious problems with the P-38, and it still gave better than it got. It had a positive kill to loss ratio with the 8th AF, even if you include ALL losses, such as losses due to take off and landing accidents, navigation errors, mechanical failures, and even running out of fuel. In fact, many 8th AF P-38 pilots said they felt a lot of their losses were due to pilots who, knowing they didn't have enough fuel to RTB, stayed and fought until they ran out of fuel or were shot down. If you count ONLY ACTUAL COMBAT LOSSES, the P-38 scored between 4:1 and 6:1 with the 8th AF, according to most sources.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
USAAF had a deeply ingrained bias against the P-38 and to a lesser degree, the P-47. They weren't the epitome of what the Generals thought a fighter should be. Indeed, these Generals, who became known within the USAAF as the Mustang Mafia, were in charge of the USAAF Fighter Command after the war ended.
You only missed the black CIA helicopters in your P-38 conspiracy theory..
:noid
-
Originally posted by TimRas
You only missed the black CIA helicopters in your P-38 conspiracy theory..
:noid
:rolleyes: Your significant contribution has been duly noted. :rolleyes:
-
My father used to work alongside a 38 pilot to whom he used to have many, many conversations. My father's input to me was the co-worker had absolutely nothing negative to say about the Lightning and that the only time he ever truly got nervous was on take-off. He said if you lost an engine on take-off it was all over. Apparently he flew most of his missions loaded out; fuel tanks, rockets, ect, and to loose a powerplant on take-off was by far his biggest worry.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
:rolleyes: Your significant contribution has been duly noted. :rolleyes:
Sorry, just wanted to know more of this "USAAF had a deeply ingrained bias against the P-38" thing
;)
Just may be it was that the P-51 could do everything that that the the p-38 could do, at half the price (51,572 vs 97,147 $, 1944 price).
-
.
-
.
-
Originally posted by TimRas
Sorry, just wanted to know more of this "USAAF had a deeply ingrained bias against the P-38" thing
;)
Just may be it was that the P-51 could do everything that that the the p-38 could do, at half the price (51,572 vs 97,147 $, 1944 price).
Well, the problem with your assumption is that the P-51 couldn't do everything a P-38 could do. Not even close. In fact, the only thing a P-51D could do better than a P-38J-25-Lo or later was top speed in a dive, and top speed at CERTAIN altitudes.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Everyone seems to have forgotten that the P-38 was a primary fighter in the MTO, escorting bombers into Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Germany (several trips to Berlin too). It proved as reliable there as the P-51, not suffering the engine failure issues seen when deployed with the 8th AF.
You cannot isolate the 8th Air Force experience and point to the aircraft as the cause. You must evaluate what was going on the 8th AF that led to the problems.
Historians have done that and concluded that the problems were related to fuel formulation, which uniquely broke down in the Allison's intake manifold, with the anti-knock additive coming out of solution. Doolittle specified a specific fuel formulation for P-38 groups, which promptly eliminated fuel related engine damage. A second problem was that the 8th Air Force did not make any effort to train pilots in high altitude flight operations. Stateside RTUs were training pilots to fly and fight at 20,000 feet and below. Compounding the training problem was that replacement pilots rarely had any experience flying twin-engine aircraft. Most pilots arriving in Britain were trained on single-engine fighters, most getting their time in P-40s.
Now all of the above doesn't account for the P-38's design flaws. Things like a totally ineffective cockpit heater, single generator, manual oil cooler, radiator and intercooler doors; they all contributed to the numerous problems. These flaws could only be overcome, or at least mitigated by training. In the 8th AF, there was no genuine training for P-38 groups. Meanwhile, the 8th AF set up an entire training program for P-51 pilots, including combat training at "Clobber College".
Down in Italy, the 15th AF had set up a P-38 Training Command to get P-38 pilots up to speed rapidly. Plus, the fuel used in the MTO was formulated differently (much of the 8th's gas was refined by the Brits).
When the P-38L began arriving in the ETO and MTO, it arrived with automatic cooler doors, different engines with revised intake manifolds (which prevented fuel break-down), a more effective heater, dive recovery flaps, hydraulic powered ailerons and a myriad of other improvements that made the Lightning a first-rate fighter in the region.
The fact remains that the improvements were too late for the 8th AF, who never cared for the P-38 anyway. However, these new P-38s were gladly received in Italy and earned their keep flying with three of the 15th's six fighter groups. These P-38 groups were in combat up until the surrender.
The problem was one of attitude. The USAAF had a deeply ingrained bias against the P-38 and to a lesser degree, the P-47. They weren't the epitome of what the Generals thought a fighter should be. Indeed, these Generals, who became known within the USAAF as the Mustang Mafia, were in charge of the USAAF Fighter Command after the war ended. As a result, the P-38s were scrapped or sold off. P-47s were stuck in reserve and Air Guard units. The net result was that the primary ground support aircraft in place at the beginning of the Korean War were tired, old P-51Ds. While they dominated the Korean Yaks and Lavochkins, they suffered huge losses to ground fire due to the frailty of their cooling systems. Meanwhile, the Marines and Navy were flying the far more durable F4U-4, F4U-4B and F4U-5 (as well as the awesome AD-1 Skyraider). In October of 1950, the Navy offered the USAF 312 mothballed F4U-1Ds. The Air Force scoffed at the notion. Another 200 P-51 pilots would die before the surviving Mustangs were retired and replaced by the F-80 and F-84. Until the Inchon landings opened airfields on the Korean peninsular, the F-80s and F-84s had to operate out of Japan. They lacked the range to loiter over combat areas in Korea. Thus, the P-51s and a few dozen F-82 (twin Mustangs) were the primary support fighters.
When one evaluates the performance of a fighter in a theater or zone of combat, one must look at the entire picture. A localized snapshot can be extremely misleading.
My regards,
Widewing
Damn fascinating stuff Widewing:aok
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Well, the problem with your assumption is that the P-51 couldn't do everything a P-38 could do. Not even close. In fact, the only thing a P-51D could do better than a P-38J-25-Lo or later was top speed in a dive, and top speed at CERTAIN altitudes.
Thousands of lines have been written here on this earlier...
IMHO the P-38 did well everywhere where it fought primarily at low altitudes. However, the P-51 replaced it everywhere in high altitude tasks including MTO and Pacific. While dive brakes and other mods improved the situation, the main flaws were still there and fixing these would have required large redesigning.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Thousands of lines have been written here on this earlier...
IMHO the P-38 did well everywhere where it fought primarily at low altitudes. However, the P-51 replaced it everywhere in high altitude tasks including MTO and Pacific. While dive brakes and other mods improved the situation, the main flaws were still there and fixing these would have required large redesigning.
Yes, thousands of line have been written. And plenty of them are wrong.
The P-38 did quite well at every altitude. The 9th AF, 15th AF, and even the 5th AF all fought at high altitudes and did pretty well. With P-38's.
There were units that flew high altitude missions that NEVER turned in their P-38's for P-51's during the war.
For the most part, the P-51 ended up replacing the P-38 due to supply and cost issues. The P-38 was never adequately second sourced, and was ALWAYS in short supply. Funny, there were over 10,000 P-38's built during the war, and there still weren't enough to go around. They were always in demand, so it seems maybe everyone didn't want to get rid of them. And there were PLENTY of units that flew at higher altitudes that either kept their P-38's or wanted to but were forced to turn them in.
-
Originally posted by TimRas
Sorry, just wanted to know more of this "USAAF had a deeply ingrained bias against the P-38" thing
;)
Just may be it was that the P-51 could do everything that that the the p-38 could do, at half the price (51,572 vs 97,147 $, 1944 price).
True, the problem is the 8th AF in particular the Bomber Theory guys had an escort fighter that could go the distance in 42 but shipped it to North Africa and let the bomber guys get clobbered into 1944. The Mustang wasn't there in 42 with the range to escort the buffs.
My favorte 54th FS story (these being the guys who flew in the Aluetians starting with P38Es) is the recollections of one of the pilots about how to get out of the cold of the huts and warm up he'd crawl into his 38 to sleep.
They took 38Es with DTs and had them in the air for 11 hours to test range in the worst kind of conditions. The E didn't have the leading edge fuel tanks of the J/L.
They didn't know the 38 was supposed to be a problem and swore by it.
The 9th AF guys flying 38s in the 370th didn't want to give them up for 51s but had to. 367th didn't want to give them up for Jugs. 474th lobbied the 9th AF CO to keep their 38s and won the argument.
1st 14th and 82nd all did just fine in 38Fs through Ls from 42 til the end of the war in the MTO.
Economically the 51 was the better deal. Again it wasn't there in 42 and a lot of bomber guys died while the generals left them hanging believing they could go unescorted when they could have had 38s going with them from the beginning.
-
Lots of folks seem to forget the problems the 51s had . Those guys that flew those early missions to Germany knowing the guns might fail, the plugs might foul, the motor mounts might fail, etc had some serious guts doing that in a single engine bird.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
True, the problem is the 8th AF in particular the Bomber Theory guys had an escort fighter that could go the distance in 42 but shipped it to North Africa and let the bomber guys get clobbered into 1944. The Mustang wasn't there in 42 with the range to escort the buffs.
My favorte 54th FS story (these being the guys who flew in the Aluetians starting with P38Es) is the recollections of one of the pilots about how to get out of the cold of the huts and warm up he'd crawl into his 38 to sleep.
They took 38Es with DTs and had them in the air for 11 hours to test range in the worst kind of conditions. The E didn't have the leading edge fuel tanks of the J/L.
They didn't know the 38 was supposed to be a problem and swore by it.
The 9th AF guys flying 38s in the 370th didn't want to give them up for 51s but had to. 367th didn't want to give them up for Jugs. 474th lobbied the 9th AF CO to keep their 38s and won the argument.
1st 14th and 82nd all did just fine in 38Fs through Ls from 42 til the end of the war in the MTO.
Economically the 51 was the better deal. Again it wasn't there in 42 and a lot of bomber guys died while the generals left them hanging believing they could go unescorted when they could have had 38s going with them from the beginning.
It never ceases to amaze me and anger me the stupidity of the leaders who do things on purpose that only helps to get the people they are supposed be protecting killed and make it harder on them.
The P-38 could have been carrying them all along but due to their brain constipation of "they can fly unescorted" alot of folks died. When they had what seemed to be an obvious solution that even the most mentally retarded general should have recognized.
Alot of that is going on now with the current war and administration. And guess who gets screwed, the guys doing the hard work. America just never learns does it ??
-
Living as a Canadian, I SHOULD be biased against the US, but hey. As human beings aren't we all just slightly messed up?
Give us power and we'll screw our people over some more.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Lots of folks seem to forget the problems the 51s had . Those guys that flew those early missions to Germany knowing the guns might fail, the plugs might foul, the motor mounts might fail, etc had some serious guts doing that in a single engine bird.
Why would the guns in the 51 be any more prone to failing then those in the 38? They were both M2HB's (plus, obviously, the 20mm in the 38)werent they?
-
The way the guns were laid out in the early P-51 caused frequent jamming during combat maneuvering.
ack-ack
-
I read a book by a guy (later made general) who had 6 or so kills in Italy in B model....he said the 4 guns were mounted at funny angle due to the wing not being thick enough?
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Why would the guns in the 51 be any more prone to failing then those in the 38? They were both M2HB's (plus, obviously, the 20mm in the 38)weren't they?
The installation caused them to be prone to jam, especially during high G maneuvers. Can't remember off hand if it was a feeding issue or an ejecting issue,
The heads on the Merlins in the earlier P-51's were notorious for cracking, and you had 30 seconds of power left after they dumped the coolant out, then it seized. They also had even more problems with spark plug fouling than the Allisons in the P-38 did. The problems carried over to a lesser degree even in mid 44.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
When one evaluates the performance of a fighter in a theater or zone of combat, one must look at the entire picture. A localized snapshot can be extremely misleading.
My regards,
Widewing
So basically due to people in charge's. Ignorance, refusal to accept the situation and work with what they had. And not live in a fantasy land of what tactics were going to work they got alot of people killed. Doolittle was a wonderful man, smart practical, and with common sense. He kept his mind on what was important, bringing people back alive and doing whatever had to be done to do that.
The story about the Navy offering the AF mothballed F-4u's and the Air Force not accepting them is classic. They'd rather see pilots get shot down and killed flying in P-51's when hit with a pellet gun. Than they would rather use F-4u's and come home alive.
That's America for you.
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Why would the guns in the 51 be any more prone to failing then those in the 38? They were both M2HB's (plus, obviously, the 20mm in the 38)werent they?
The problem was with the installation of the guns. To fit within the limited space provided, the guns were canted on an angle. This resulted in the belted rounds have to make a sharp turn to feed into the receiver of the weapon. Jams were the rule with this layout. It was fixed in the P-51D, with a redesigned wing structure that allowed the guns to set upright.
The image below shows the acute angle the ammo belt had to bend.
By the way, the Brownings could be configured to feed from either side of the receiver.
(http://warbird-central.com/african-americans-wwii-055.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by TimRas
Sorry, just wanted to know more of this "USAAF had a deeply ingrained bias against the P-38" thing
;)
Just may be it was that the P-51 could do everything that that the the p-38 could do, at half the price (51,572 vs 97,147 $, 1944 price).
It boiled down to the P-38 not being the type of fighter ex-fighter pilot brass hats preferred. General Hunter (head honcho of 8th AF Fighter Command) stated that "the P-38 is not my idea of a fighter". He flat-out refused to even qualify in the type, preferring to tool around his bases in a C-45, P-39 or even a Spitfire Mk.V. He expressed relief that the P-38 squadrons were transferred to North Africa.
Even Hap Arnold weighed in, stating that the P-38 "is too complex to maintain easily, too complex for inexperienced pilots and too damn expensive."
Several Group COs are on record stating that they didn't like the P-38. One even said that he would rather fly the P-40. They didn't like the increased work load of two engines and related systems. Many simply saw a twin-engine fighter as an aberration, completely at odds with what they thought a fighter should be (single-engine).
When General Kenney petitioned Arnold for more P-38s, Arnold told him he was getting P-51s. Kenney preferred the P-38 for long, over-water missions, where an engine failure in a P-51 meant a lost pilot.
In his memoirs Kenney wrote: "I settled a lot of problems with the Personnel Section that afternoon and then flew to Dayton for a conference with Lieutenant General William Knudsen on modifications for aircraft coming my way and on the continuation of the P-38 in production. There was another drive at that time to stop building any more of them and to substitute P-51 Mustangs. I told Knudsen that the reasons I had given him in September 1943 for wanting the P-38, still held. We still had a lot of water to fly over and I wanted a fighter plane that could bring the kids back if one engine quit. Knudsen promised me he would not let anyone shut off P-38 production below the number required to keep me going."
Also from the same memoir; "Everyone was really stubborn about giving me airplanes, or even replacements for my losses. I warned them that if they
didn’t keep me going, we would be run out of New Guinea, as supply of our troops there was impossible unless we maintained at least local control of the air. I suggested that maybe they might let me have ten per cent of the aircraft factory output and let the rest of the war have the remainder. The answer was still No. The European show did not like the B-24, or the P-38, or the P-47 Republic Aircraft fighter. They preferred the B-17 as a bomber and the P-51 Mustang as a fighter."
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
It never ceases to amaze me and anger me the stupidity of the leaders...The P-38 could have been carrying them all along but due to their brain constipation of "they can fly unescorted" alot of folks died. When they had what seemed to be an obvious solution that even the most mentally retarded general should have recognized...
Don't forget that the theories of Douhet had entered into the minds of almost every air force in the world prior to the war starting. Strategic bombing as a concept was, practically speaking, in its infancy. Douhet theorized in the 20's that the Bomber would become the pre-eminent war winning weapons platform, unescorted by fighters. Most of his theories were acted upon, and only through hindsight are we now able to critique them. If you had asked anyone in 1940 whether or not unescorted bombers made sense, they'd have all said sure, because it hadn't been disproven, if indeed it actually was, yet.
That the P-38 was not used in ETO as early as it could have been was probably more because the Douhet disciples in the USAAF believed, with almost religious zealotry, in the primacy of his doctrine. That's not stupidity--practically the opposite--those that believed in it did mountains of research and theorizing, and devoted most of bomber R&D in that direction. There's a reason the B-17 had 12 caliber 50's on it.
-
Good point, hindsight is 20/20. But it still seems to me somebody would have seen that coming. Unfortunately those people don't get listened too and everybody dies.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Yes, thousands of line have been written. And plenty of them are wrong.
Lets take a quick look to your arguments.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The P-38 did quite well at every altitude. The 9th AF, 15th AF, and even the 5th AF all fought at high altitudes and did pretty well. With P-38's.
9th AF was a tactical air force and flew primarily tactical missions at low altitude, there might had been some rare cases when they flew at high altitude.
15th AF used P-38s as bomber escort during winter 1943/44. However, the difference to the 8th AF is that during that period they had no P-38Js but Gs and Hs and escorted planes were mostly B-24s which generally flew cruised at lower altitudes than the B-17. There were some P-38J based F-5s in the MTO and these faced very similar problems as 8th AF (see AHT). The P-51 replaced the P-38 as an escort starting from spring 1944 and for the rest of war the P-38s of the 15th operated at lower altitudes.
5th AF fought mostly at low altitudes and in pacific climate.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
There were units that flew high altitude missions that NEVER turned in their P-38's for P-51's during the war.
I quess you mean the P-38 units of the 15th AF; these turned to the ground attack missions once the P-51 force build up in the MTO.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
For the most part, the P-51 ended up replacing the P-38 due to supply and cost issues.
The USAF had ordered thousands of P-38s and was going to use them somewhere so at least in short term the costs were certainly not the reason why the P-38 was replaced in certain tasks.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The P-38 was never adequately second sourced, and was ALWAYS in short supply. Funny, there were over 10,000 P-38's built during the war, and there still weren't enough to go around. They were always in demand, so it seems maybe everyone didn't want to get rid of them.
It can be said that the demand of the P-38 was larger than production up to autumn 1944. During spring 1945 the production of the P-38 was at top level but except at SWPA number of the P-38s started to decrease in active fronts and large number of P-38s found their way to secondary places like latin America or simply were stored to somewhere in US. P-38s in hand August 1945 from USAAF statistical digest:
Total 2417
Continental US 829
Overseas 1588
Against Germany 182 (555 May 1945)
Against Japan 1142
ETO 176 (234 May 1945)
MTO 6 (321 May 1945)
CBI 218
Alaska 116
Latin America 196
Far east 808 (SWPA)
(There is 68 planes missing from total, possibly on route)
Regarding these conspiracy theories (Mustang Mafia etc.). If there actually was something like that, it was actually against the P-51; as an example Echhols was phasing Mustang out of production spring 1942 etc.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Lots of folks seem to forget the problems the 51s had . Those guys that flew those early missions to Germany knowing the guns might fail, the plugs might foul, the motor mounts might fail, etc had some serious guts doing that in a single engine bird.
Yes, there were plenty of problems with the P-51; basicly two fresh groups (354th and 357th) allocated to the 9th AF were hastily rushed to escort duties with a new unproven plane.
However, it's the results which matter; during the Big Week these two new groups out performed both P-38 groups (which had been around longer time) as well as most of the P-47 groups. Basicly it was the combat record which changed the minds of the USAF despite what ever were the problems.
Note that the P-47 groups were very large that time sending usually out more than 100 planes so based on sorties the P-51 did even better.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Lets take a quick look to your arguments.
9th AF was a tactical air force and flew primarily tactical missions at low altitude, there might had been some rare cases when they flew at high altitude.
15th AF used P-38s as bomber escort during winter 1943/44. However, the difference to the 8th AF is that during that period they had no P-38Js but Gs and Hs and escorted planes were mostly B-24s which generally flew cruised at lower altitudes than the B-17. There were some P-38J based F-5s in the MTO and these faced very similar problems as 8th AF (see AHT). The P-51 replaced the P-38 as an escort starting from spring 1944 and for the rest of war the P-38s of the 15th operated at lower altitudes.
I quess you mean the P-38 units of the 15th AF; these turned to the ground attack missions once the P-51 force build up in the MTO.
9th AF 38 units were escorting 8th bombers in the Fall of 44. They were pulled from their ground attack role back to England. Was it all the time? Nope. As and example the 474th FG flew 3 high alt escorts of the 17s in October 44. The other 38 Groups were involved as well.
I went back to check the MTO group histories I have. 38s were escorting bombers through the Spring of 45. They were doing other jobs too including ground attack. Another role they had was escorting the high altitude "Photo Freddie" recce birds over Germany.
The 38s were involved in the longest escort mission flown from the MTO when they and the 51s escorted 17s to Berlin in March of 45. They had 300 gallon DTs delivered specifically for that run to make sure they had the range.
Understand that none of this is bash the 51 time or the 38 was king time. The 51 was the plane for the job in 44-45. Economically, pilot training wise and performance along with the great range made it the plane to have.
That doesn't mean the 38 wasn't a very capable bird too. The pilots who flew it, swore by it outside of the 8th. For whatever reason, probably because the 8th was the most visible of the USAAF air forces, the 38 problems with the 8th got magnified.
Understand that regardless of the war, the internal politics within the services remained and bomber doctrine vs fighter doctrine was very much in flux in 42-43 before coming into sharp focus in 43-44 (read Schwienfurt etc) The bomber guys turned out to be wrong and the only way for the bombers to survive was with fighter escort.
It's amazing how the problems got solved then. It's hard to imagine, had the thinking been realistic in 42-43 that the 38 would have been sent to North Africa despite having the range to cover the bombers all the way, and the P47 would be delivered to the ETO without provisions for even carrying a single drop tank despite the fact DTs were not a new invention.
Its interesting how the Jug, by the time all was said and done was ranging all over Germany too with 3 DTs hung in 44.
So the 38 problems were solved, the Jug range problems were solved and the Mustang teething troubles were solved, when those problems moved to the head of the list because the bomber compaign couldn't sustain the losses it was recieving and still exist as a viable force.
Amazing how that works :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
9th AF 38 units were escorting 8th bombers in the Fall of 44. They were pulled from their ground attack role back to England. Was it all the time? Nope. As and example the 474th FG flew 3 high alt escorts of the 17s in October 44. The other 38 Groups were involved as well.
Yep, I knew that they flew some escort missions but these were quite rare.
Originally posted by Guppy35
I went back to check the MTO group histories I have. 38s were escorting bombers through the Spring of 45. They were doing other jobs too including ground attack. Another role they had was escorting the high altitude "Photo Freddie" recce birds over Germany.
I don't have much data on MTO P-38 groups other than Ethell's book and at least he claims that "For remainder of the war in Mediterranean, the P-38 made it's major contribution as a ground attack aircraft". 82nd claimed only 4 victories in air after September 1944 and taking a quick look to 82nd FG web site also revealed that they mostly flew ground attack. However, there is also high altitude missions listed in mission reports, as well as recce escort missions as you claimed so I have no problem to admit that I was wrong in this case.
Originally posted by Guppy35
Understand that none of this is bash the 51 time or the 38 was king time.
Well, if you look above, it was not me who started to speak about USAF bias on P-38 or Mustang mafia. I just noted that P-38 did fine low altitude tasks, while for the escort tasks the P-51 was obviously better.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Yep, I knew that they flew some escort missions but these were quite rare.
I don't have much data on MTO P-38 groups other than Ethell's book and at least he claims that "For remainder of the war in Mediterranean, the P-38 made it's major contribution as a ground attack aircraft". 82nd claimed only 4 victories in air after September 1944 and taking a quick look to 82nd FG web site also revealed that they mostly flew ground attack. However, there is also high altitude missions listed in mission reports, as well as recce escort missions as you claimed so I have no problem to admit that I was wrong in this case.
I was checking my 1st FG stuff as well as that just didn't sound right. They were flying escorts to the bombers until the end. lots of talk in their history of 25-30K missions and the cold. They flew 12 bomber escorts to Germany in April 45 as an example.
In regards to kills, the 38s in the Pacific scored their last kills in early 45 for the most part.
I think in both the PTO and ETO the air to air stuff dropped dramatically in 45. All the fighter groups in the ETO were of the 'in the air and on the ground' mode, which of course lead to so many guys getting chopped down by flak.
Again, from an economic, training and performance standpoint, the Mustang was the better option in the end. It was a war of attrition and replacing losses was part of the deal too. Throw in maint and manpower costs and it only makes sense.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I was checking my 1st FG stuff as well as that just didn't sound right. They were flying escorts to the bombers until the end. lots of talk in their history of 25-30K missions and the cold. They flew 12 bomber escorts to Germany in April 45 as an example.
That appear to be only partially true because according to 1st FG web site many of these escort missions (bomber or photo) were to Italy. The total being "14 dive bombing, twelve bomber escorts some concurrently on the same day, two fighter sweeps, and 29 photo escorts".
Originally posted by Guppy35
In regards to kills, the 38s in the Pacific scored their last kills in early 45 for the most part.
Looking the victory claims of various 15th AF groups reveals that after very busy summer 1944 the enemy activity dropped almost to zero in MTO. The 1st FG did not claim many in air after Sep 1944, just like 82nd. I have not found data on 14th FG so picture is not complete
However, the P-51 groups of the 15th AF (31st, 52nd, 325th and 332nd) still claimed quite many despite also they had very silent periods. The total for entire MTO being (total, air, ground):
Sep 44: 233, 18, 215
Oct 44: 257, 60, 197
Nov 44: 66, 38, 28
Dec 44: 66, 38, 28
Jan 45: 8, 8, 0
Feb 45: 27, 8, 19
Mar 45: 123, 105, 18
Apr 45: 110, 68, 42
May 45: nil
The reason for this might be that the P-51s penetrated deeper to Germany; at least the 82nd often escorted the bombers first part of the mission and the P-51s continued from that point while the 82nd went down to strafing attacks on targets of oppurnity.
Originally posted by Guppy35
I think in both the PTO and ETO the air to air stuff dropped dramatically in 45. All the fighter groups in the ETO were of the 'in the air and on the ground' mode, which of course lead to so many guys getting chopped down by flak.
The MTO statistics reveals that most of the time they still claimed more in air than in ground, most notable exceptions being Sep and Oct 1944.
Originally posted by Guppy35
Again, from an economic, training and performance standpoint, the Mustang was the better option in the end. It was a war of attrition and replacing losses was part of the deal too. Throw in maint and manpower costs and it only makes sense.
I agree that in long term economics makes the difference while in short term it might not be the issue because the planes were allready ordered and crew trained etc. They still produced some 400+ P-38s per month 1945 and while only small part of these found their way to active fronts, the USAF still allocated most of these to use. Anyway, the notable thing is that the force build up against Japanese mainland contained mostly P-51s and P-47s.
Based on pretty much instant success of the fresh P-51 FGs in ETO I agree that easier training is also a signifigant factor. I can't imagine such "one night" transition to the P-38 as the 4th FG did to the P-51.
The performance is allways debatable subject. However, I think that even most P-38s pilots agree that the P-51 had some advantages.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Anyway, the notable thing is that the force build up against Japanese mainland contained mostly P-51s and P-47s.
Based on pretty much instant success of the fresh P-51 FGs in ETO I agree that easier training is also a signifigant factor. I can't imagine such "one night" transition to the P-38 as the 4th FG did to the P-51.
Before we get carried away with the legend of the 4th learning on the fly. Understand they were assigned their first Mustang on Sepember 25th, 1943 when one was assigned to the 334th FS for evaluation and testing. They started the transition for real on February 14th, 1944 and flew the first Mustang Mission on February 28th. On the early missions they suffered a number of aborts due to mechanical difficulties and it took some time to get things straightened out.
So a veteran unit of experienced pilots and ground crews got going in a couple weeks.
370th FG, 9th AF got to England in Late February and began transitioning to the 38 in Early March 44. They'd been trained on Jugs. They didn't do it on the fly but they went operational May 1. Their ground crews had no Allision engine time at all and the pilots were not twin engine guys. The 4th at least had Spit time and the mechanics had Merlin time.
A brand new group without any experience transitioned from a single engine bird to a twin engined bird in a month and a half and went into combat. Not too bad I'd say :)
When it came time to transition to Mustangs, the 370th did so grudgingly as they'd grown to love their 38s.
As for the PTO. It's true the Iwo based 7th AF squadrons were 51s. The 21st, 15th and 506th were all 51D Groups. There were 2 P47N Groups but they didn't get there until July 45.
But you forget that the 5th AF had been fighting the Japanese since the get go and they consisted of 3 P38 Groups at the end of the war in the 49th, 8th and 475th Fighter Groups and 2 51 Groups in the 35th and 348th.
And of course the 13th AF fighter Command was 18th and 347th Fighter Groups and they had 38s.
And of course the 343rd FG of the 11th AF in the Aleutians, that scored the first kills against the Japanese in 38Es were in 38s until the end as well.
Trust me that I'm not bashing the 51. 506th FG Mustangs on Iwo are a long time hobby. I think those VLR missions flown by the Iwo Mustangs were the toughest fighter missions of the war. I can talk 4th 51s til you are blue in the face and I'd stack my 4th FG library up against just about anybody but maybe Fencer.
Lets just not minimize one bird or over emphasize another. They both did their job and contributed and were significant in the roles they were given against both the LW and the Japanese.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Before we get carried away with the legend of the 4th learning on the fly. Understand they were assigned their first Mustang on Sepember 25th, 1943 when one was assigned to the 334th FS for evaluation and testing. They started the transition for real on February 14th, 1944 and flew the first Mustang Mission on February 28th. On the early missions they suffered a number of aborts due to mechanical difficulties and it took some time to get things straightened out.
So a veteran unit of experienced pilots and ground crews got going in a couple weeks.
OK, there is obviously some sort of myth in the transition of the 4th. However, they flew both types during the transition being operational all the time.
Originally posted by Guppy35
370th FG, 9th AF got to England in Late February and began transitioning to the 38 in Early March 44. They'd been trained on Jugs. They didn't do it on the fly but they went operational May 1. Their ground crews had no Allision engine time at all and the pilots were not twin engine guys. The 4th at least had Spit time and the mechanics had Merlin time.
A brand new group without any experience transitioned from a single engine bird to a twin engined bird in a month and a half and went into combat. Not too bad I'd say :)
I agree.
Originally posted by Guppy35
When it came time to transition to Mustangs, the 370th did so grudgingly as they'd grown to love their 38s.
Well, even some P-40 pilots liked their old ride more than the new when they transitioned to the new types. Personal opinions tend to vary, however, generally the former P-38 units started to claim more enemy planes after transition to the P-51.
Originally posted by Guppy35
As for the PTO. It's true the Iwo based 7th AF squadrons were 51s. The 21st, 15th and 506th were all 51D Groups. There were 2 P47N Groups but they didn't get there until July 45.
But you forget that the 5th AF had been fighting the Japanese since the get go and they consisted of 3 P38 Groups at the end of the war in the 49th, 8th and 475th Fighter Groups and 2 51 Groups in the 35th and 348th.
And of course the 13th AF fighter Command was 18th and 347th Fighter Groups and they had 38s.
I was talking about USAF force build up against Japanese main land, only small parts of the 5th and 13th AF operated against japanese home islands. The P-38s were mostly in the SWPA where the P-38 did particularly well.
Originally posted by Guppy35
And of course the 343rd FG of the 11th AF in the Aleutians, that scored the first kills against the Japanese in 38Es were in 38s until the end as well.
Last victory claimed by 11th AF fighters was from May 1943 so it was not a particularly active front.
Originally posted by Guppy35
Trust me that I'm not bashing the 51. 506th FG Mustangs on Iwo are a long time hobby. I think those VLR missions flown by the Iwo Mustangs were the toughest fighter missions of the war. I can talk 4th 51s til you are blue in the face and I'd stack my 4th FG library up against just about anybody but maybe Fencer.
Lets just not minimize one bird or over emphasize another. They both did their job and contributed and were significant in the roles they were given against both the LW and the Japanese.
I'm not bashing the P-38 either; I'm saying that it did generally well but the P-51 did some tasks better and that was also a common opinion inside USAF.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Germans regarded the P-38 as a subpar plane.
P-47 didn't have the range to escort B17s in 1942 and 1943.
that could be why they lost the air war!
they underestimated everything we had! after all the rest of the world was substandard the them! :lol