Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Avanti on May 19, 2010, 03:05:17 AM
-
I wish that the P-38L could carry 2x 250lb and 2x 500lb on it's outer hardpoints, 2x 2000lb on it's inner hardpoints and 4x M10 three-tube 4.5 rockets like they used to be able to
Avanti
-
Are you sure it was able to carry that much ordnance at one time? Cite your sources.
-
Well it's Maximum bomb load is 4000lb's
Maybe HTC could put in a new system that allows a larger variety of ordnance but restricts the weight?
Being able to carry 4 bombs would be great for gv killing and taking out small targets and having the 2000 pounders would be great for attacking cv groups and destroying hangers
Avanti
-
ah yes.....the lil bomber that could :lol next thing you will want is 4 50s and a 20 mm so you can dogfight in it too i supose :bolt:
-
Ahhh, you don't need all that crap on the wings. The soft sounds of Taps playing in the background while flying in a B38?...now that's a wish :D
-
And why do you want a P-38 to carried that kind of load?
-
It was rare for a P-38L or any other P-38 for that matter to carry the 2,000lb bomb, pilots felt the 1,000lb bomb was more than sufficient. Another note, just because a plane might have had the capacity to carry XX pounds of ordnance doesn't mean they actually did.
Also, the P-38L utilized the "Christmas Tree" rocket mounts, not the tube mounts the earlier P-38 models used.
ack-ack
-
I think junior has been mis-reading specifications. If you look real close in the hangar, you can carry 4 bombs and a good number of rocket...but the biggest bombs are 1000 lbs.
-
Yes the 38 could carry a heavier load than what is currently represented in game (including the ability to carry two torpedoes), but what we have in game is much more representative (as near as I can figure) to what WAS used.
I just quickly flipped through Bodie's book on the 38, the 474th, 8th and 475th group histories and did not see any photo's of bombs being carried outside of the booms. I will admit that if it was done it would probably have occurred in the MTO or ETO where the 38 was used more in the fighter-bomber role than seems to be the case in the PTO and my library here is a little thin on that subject (oh to have more disposable income...)
I believe that 2000lbs were used on occasion but required sway braces to be fitted, weren't terribly popular with air and ground crews who felt the 1000lbers were easier to deal with and were sufficient to do the job in most cases.
I dropped a PM over to Guppy/Corkyjr to see if he has anything in his collection that may differ with what I've found.
-
Well it's Maximum bomb load is 4000lb's
Maybe HTC could put in a new system that allows a larger variety of ordnance but restricts the weight?
Being able to carry 4 bombs would be great for gv killing and taking out small targets and having the 2000 pounders would be great for attacking cv groups and destroying hangers
Avanti
Isn't about how much they can carry or the ordenance system on HTC, is about how they used them in WWII in real, this is the same like asking field mods on GV's... sorry I got like 1hr searching in inet for some reference about what u ask but I keep reading almost the same:
"The P-38L was the first Lightning fitted with zero-length rocket launchers. Seven high velocity aircraft rockets (HVARs) on pylons beneath each wing, and later, ten rockets on each wing on "Christmas tree" launch racks. The P-38L also had strengthened stores pylons to allow carriage of 2,000 lb (900 kg) bombs or 300 USgal (1,100 l) drop tanks."
And nothing more, or maybe are you talking about some of those weird variants like the P-38L "Super Strafer" but those ones are after the end of the war.
-
Such a loadout has never been available in AH I or AH II, at least best I can remember, having been here off and on for about a decade or so, so there is no "like they used to be able to".
There's no need for it, either. I suppose, as a compromise of sorts, the 2K# bombs could be made available, as I have seen pictures of them loaded. As stated above, few people liked them, but they were used. A pair of 2K# bombs and the "Christmas Tree" rockets would be plenty of ordnance, and almost certainly the maximum loadout used on any sort of "regular" basis. The case "could" be made that a damage increase due to a diving delivery could be given. For example, a 50% or more increase in damage to shipping due to diving delivery might be something to look at.
I doubt anyone would use such a loadout (as proposed in/by the OP), at least not more than once, even if it were available. You'd need a bomber length runway, and all of it, just to get it off the ground. You'd be so vulnerable that you would require a serious escort, and the climbout/air speed gain would be so long that no one would want to invest the time. The P-38L is already used as a suicide ordnance truck already anyway.
-
I wish that the P-38L could carry 2x 250lb and 2x 500lb on it's outer hardpoints, 2x 2000lb on it's inner hardpoints and 4x M10 three-tube 4.5 rockets like they used to be able to
Avanti
Which outer hardpoints are you referring to? There were no outer wing hard points. The rocket trees were on the L. 2000 pounds bombs were the max carried and that was very limited and on the wing hard points. Again no outer wing hard points.
What you are asking never happened, never was, never could have been based on the 38s. I'm curious where you got this idea from?
-
I think it's a misunderstanding calling the field-mod bomb shackles "outer hardpoints"....
But overall the 2000lb bombs weren't used much, and neither were the 1000lb bombs. In real life the 250lb and 500lb bombs were way way way more common.
-
Correct me on this if i am wrong. Despite the paid load of the P-38, didn't the U.S. felt that the P-47 was more successful to ground attacks than the P-38. Thus, not having the P-38 as a ground attack roll but more of air combat roll.
-
Correct me on this if i am wrong. Despite the paid load of the P-38, didn't the U.S. felt that the P-47 was more successful to ground attacks than the P-38. Thus, not having the P-38 as a ground attack roll but more of air combat roll.
I know many felt, along with the USAAF brass that the Jug was the better ground attack aircraft of the two but it didn't cause the P-38 to be pushed out of that role. It was used to great affect as a ground attack aircraft in three of the four theaters of combat, so much so that in the tail end of the war that was primarily what the Lightning did.
The one thing I find ironic about this thread is that the dedicated P-38 flyers are the ones that are wholeheartedly against this wish, while the ones that don't fly it very much are in favor.
ack-ack
-
Correct me on this if i am wrong. Despite the paid load of the P-38, didn't the U.S. felt that the P-47 was more successful to ground attacks than the P-38. Thus, not having the P-38 as a ground attack roll but more of air combat roll.
Perceptions of planes varied due to circumstance. Ask most folks what the 1st fighter over Berlin was and they'll almost invariably say the P-51....but the P-38 was actually the 1st allied fighter to venture over Berlin. By the time the teething issues had been worked out in the 38 many units had switched to the pony. All 3 planes were actually very capable in both capacities...as were the F6F and F4U. Sadly the best plane of the war was never deployed in either theater simply because the US had such an abundance of capable planes already...
-
Perceptions of planes varied due to circumstance. Ask most folks what the 1st fighter over Berlin was and they'll almost invariably say the P-51....but the P-38 was actually the 1st allied fighter to venture over Berlin. By the time the teething issues had been worked out in the 38 many units had switched to the pony. All 3 planes were actually very capable in both capacities...as were the F6F and F4U. Sadly the best plane of the war was never deployed in either theater simply because the US had such an abundance of capable planes already...
and that best plane would be...? :headscratch:
-
I think it's a misunderstanding calling the field-mod bomb shackles "outer hardpoints"....
But overall the 2000lb bombs weren't used much, and neither were the 1000lb bombs. In real life the 250lb and 500lb bombs were way way way more common.
1000 pounders were the standard from October 44 on in the ETO.
-
I know many felt, along with the USAAF brass that the Jug was the better ground attack aircraft of the two but it didn't cause the P-38 to be pushed out of that role. It was used to great affect as a ground attack aircraft in three of the four theaters of combat, so much so that in the tail end of the war that was primarily what the Lightning did.
The one thing I find ironic about this thread is that the dedicated P-38 flyers are the ones that are wholeheartedly against this wish, while the ones that don't fly it very much are in favor.
ack-ack
CC, it just seem that the P-47 was well suited for ground attack do to the abuse it can take. But never-less, both the 47, 38 and all other fighters/attackers preformed to a certain degree. Personally, i would think it would be hard to dive bomb a P-38, but what would i know i do not fly it.
and that best plane would be...? :headscratch:
I was just thinking of the same thing........maybe it was................
-
and that best plane would be...? :headscratch:
F7F, by far the best all around piston engined fighter ever built...
-
F7F, by far the best all around piston engined fighter ever built...
Its performance doesn't really support that.
The F8F, Sea Fury, Hornet and Sea Hornet all seem to be as good or better.
EDIT:
And the Navy kept the F4U over both the F7F and F8F.
-
F7F, by far the best all around piston engined fighter ever built...
That is kind of daring to say that when it never saw any action to back that remark..
-
Which outer hardpoints are you referring to? There were no outer wing hard points. The rocket trees were on the L. 2000 pounds bombs were the max carried and that was very limited and on the wing hard points. Again no outer wing hard points.
What you are asking never happened, never was, never could have been based on the 38s. I'm curious where you got this idea from?
just some links for you
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=118584399818
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning
http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p38.html
http://aircraft-list.com/db/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning/49/
these state that they were able to carry and often did carry 2x 1,600lb
http://www.warbirdalley.com/p38.htm
http://www.aircraftaces.com/p38-lightning.htm
-
just some links for you
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=118584399818
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning
http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p38.html
http://aircraft-list.com/db/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning/49/
these state that they were able to carry and often did carry 2x 1,600lb
http://www.warbirdalley.com/p38.htm
http://www.aircraftaces.com/p38-lightning.htm
Those are some ugly sources.
Were there 100 US Army squadrons that flew the P-38?
I didn't once see mention of "often" carrying 2 1600 lb bombs much less "often" carrying 1000 lb bombs. The only "1600 lb bomb" I can even think of is a torpedo.
I think this is a great example of why to never use wiki as a primary source.
wrongway
-
just some links for you
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=118584399818
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning
http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p38.html
http://aircraft-list.com/db/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning/49/
these state that they were able to carry and often did carry 2x 1,600lb
http://www.warbirdalley.com/p38.htm
http://www.aircraftaces.com/p38-lightning.htm
Those images do not show a hard point on the outer wing.
1,600lb bomb? Never knew those existed in the USAAF inventory.
Here is a picture of the underside of a P-38L. No hard point on outer wing and like a lot of P-38Ls, also had the rocket tree removed.
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/aircraft/fighter/lockheed-p-38-lightning/lockheed-p-38-l-lighting-02.jpg)
Another shot of a P-38L, again no hard points on outer wing.
(http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/050218-F-1234P-076.jpg)
ack-ack
-
never fight the mighty and powerful ackack in p38 fights...on OR off AH :aok
-
F7F, by far the best all around piston engined fighter ever built...
I don't think I agree with that assessment. It was a fine aircraft, but I think the F8F was a better pure fighter, and the F4U is a better all around fighter.
-
Its performance doesn't really support that.
The F8F, Sea Fury, Hornet and Sea Hornet all seem to be as good or better.
EDIT:
And the Navy kept the F4U over both the F7F and F8F.
I'm basing the comment on comments from the guys that flew all of the planes and its capabilities overall. It was a true midwar design that entered active service in 5/44 and would have been in service sooner if viewed primarily as a land based design. The Hornet entered service in 1946 and is a true postwar plane. Without question if we place the F7F in the context of of the planes above then you have a variety of trade offs and a further element of role since you'd need to add the skyraider to any discussion.
My comment is geared to the reality that the F7F could have been in service in the ETO replacing the P-38/P-47 before the P-51D ever arrived...
-
just some links for you
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=118584399818
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning
http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p38.html
http://aircraft-list.com/db/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning/49/
these state that they were able to carry and often did carry 2x 1,600lb
http://www.warbirdalley.com/p38.htm
http://www.aircraftaces.com/p38-lightning.htm
My sources. I've got this thing about 38s :)
Group or Squadron Histories:
“An Escort of P-38s-The 1st Fighter Group in World War 2” - John D. Mullins
“Attack & Conquer-The 8th Fighter Group in WW2” –John Stanaway & Lawrence Hickey
“The Eight Ballers: Eyes of the Fifth Air Force”-John Stanaway & Bob Rocker
“20th Fighter Group” – Ron MacKay
"Straight and Level-The story of the 33rd Photo Recon Squadron in WW2" J.B. Woodson Jr.
“The Fighting 33rd Nomads in World War 2 Volumes 1 & 2” -James E. Reed
“Cobra in the Clouds-Combat History of the 39th Fighter Squadron”-John Stanaway
“Protect & Avenge-The 49th Fighter Group in World War 2”-S.W. Furguson & William K. Pascalis
"The Only Way Home" 54th FS in the Aleutians" Robert Haynes Murray
“The 55th Fighter Group vs The Luftwaffe”-John M. Gray
“Adorimini-A History of the 82nd Fighter Group in World War 2” –Steve Blake with John Stanaway
“The 370th Fighter Group in World War 2” -Jay Jones
“The Geyser Gang-The 428th Fighter Squadron in World War 2” –John Truman Steinko
"Vampire Squadron-The saga of the 44th FS in the Southwest Pacific"-William Starke
"The 474th Fighter Group in WW2"- Isham Keller.
“Possum, Clover & Hades-The 475th Fighter Group in WW2”-John Stanaway
“The 479th Fighter Group in World War 2” - Terry Fairfield
Books on the P38 Lightning and it’s pilots
“The Lockheed P-38” – Warren Bodie
“Peter Three Eight-The Pilot’s Story” -John Stanaway
“P38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI” - John Stanaway
“P38 Lightning Aces of the ETO/MTO” - John Stanaway
“Lockheed P38 Lightning” -Steve Pace
“Lockheed P-28 Lightning” -Frederick A. Johnsen
“P-38 Lightning in World War II Color” - Jeffrey L. Ethell
“P-38 Lightning-Restoring a Classic American Warbird” –Jesse Alexander
"Forked Tailed Devil"- Martin Caiden
"Lightning Strikes" - Donald Davis
"Aces High: The Heroic Saga of America's two top-scoring Aces of WWII" - Bill Yenne
"P38 Lightning in Detail & Scale Part 1 XP-38-P38H" by Bert Kinzey
"P38 Lightning in Detail & Scale Part 2 P-38J-P38M" by Bert Kinzey
"Lockheed P38 Lightning-in USAAF, French, Italian, Chinese Nationalist Service" Arco Aircam Aviation Series #10
"Twelve to One"-5th Fighter Command Aces of the Pacific. Compiled by Tony Holmes. (This is the manual put together by 5th FC using the words of their best pilots. Includes lots of 38 drivers)
"Lockheed P-38 Lightning in Italian Service 1943-1955"-Marco Mattioli
-
I don't think I agree with that assessment. It was a fine aircraft, but I think the F8F was a better pure fighter, and the F4U is a better all around fighter.
I've certainly got zero ability to argue that one way or the other. To a large degree I'm relying on comments from Corky Meyer and others who clearly believed the F7F was the best US built piston engined fighter. This is snippet from Corky's story about his run in with Fred Trapnell the Navy's chief test pilot in WW2. He is the guy who approved production of the F6F after just 1 3 hour test flight, shortcutting the entire process to get the bird in production and generally regarded as the top US authority across all US services in his judgement of aircraft suitability in this regard during WW2...
Just as we reached his Tigercat, I blurted, "If you dislike the Tigercat so much, why do you always fly it?" He explained: "The excess power of its two engines is wonderful for aerobatics; the cockpit planning and the forward visibility in the carrier approach is the best in any fighter ever built; the tricycle landing gear allows much faster pilot checkouts; the roll with the power boost rudder is faster than the ailerons; and it has a greater range than any fighter in inventory." Again, he was absolutely right. As he climbed up the ladder to the cockpit, he turned around, grinned and told me, "It's the best damn fighter I've ever flown." I realized he had thrown the entire test-pilot schoolbook at me with his succinct tirade and that we were probably pretty close in our opinions regarding the handling characteristics that define a really good fighter.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200208/ai_n9120620/pg_4/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200208/ai_n9120620/pg_4/)
-
My comment is geared to the reality that the F7F could have been in service in the ETO replacing the P-38/P-47 before the P-51D ever arrived...
Ok, then lets limit it to the Fury. The Fury could have been at the same time as the Tempest and had markedly higher performance and reliability. The Fury was the basis of the Sea Fury, which as I recall was the last front line piston fighter in British service.
-
The 1st fury prototype flew in 9/44. Leaving that aside nothing I've read anywhere indicates it would have the remotest chance vs an F7F or its versatility. It's got shorter legs, lower max altitude and based on what I can find much worse overall handling. I'd love to see a comparison of hornet and fury given that the hornet is a much more equivalent design.
-
It's really hard to use nothing but test pilot's subjective opinions to declare a plane to be completely superior to every other plane.
No doubt the F7F had the potential to be a great plane. But unrealized potential is just that, and there's no way to see if it could have been realized, or how much there was.