P47, P51, P38...the German view......

[hazed-]

ok after a recent arguement online about the durability of certain aircraft it was soon realised that those who think the Us planes were indestructable(ok im exagerating) were not going to back down.
So i thought id type out a small excert from

'The Luftwaffe fighter force.The view from the cockpit' by Adolf Galland et al, edited by david C. Isby ISBN 1-85367-327-7

under chapter 30  'GAF opinions of allied aircraft'

Interigation of Generalleutnant Galland,Generalfeldmarschel Milch,Oberstleutnant Bar,Generalmajor Hitschhold, and Leutnant Neuman at kaufbeuren Germany 2nd september 1945.

'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.'

'The thunderbolt (p47) This aircraft was exceptionally fast in a dive, but could be outdistanced at the start of the dive by the Me109.It would absorb many cannon hits and still fly.'

'The mustang (p51) This was the best American fighter because of its long range,climb and dive characteristics, fire power and maneuverability.It was very vulnerbale to cannon fire.It would break up during very violent dives and maneuvers.'

'The warhawk(p40) This aircraft was inferior as a modern fighter.The models with only 4x50 cal MGs were considered to be too lightly armed.It was slow and could not dive or climb.Its best quality was that it could outturn the me109 and fw190 below 12,000 feet.'

as you can see, its a straightforward assesment of these aircraft and as with the rest of the book including their ideas as to why they lost the air war it is an honest appraisal.Theres no boasting of any sort in the book, after all this was interogation and id recommend it to anyone interested in the structure of the LW, and their tactics etc during WW2.

theres also the hurricane and typhoon and p39 but i cant be arsed to type it all out

you get the idea here.Look at the points ive put in bold type.then look in AH and see if it seems to match up.

AH's p38 is FAR too durable, the p51 is also a bit too tough imo and the P47 is probably too weak!!(although probably nearest to the real thing)

im fed up with hearing that the p38 was a tough durable aircraft and the same for p51 when accounts in this and other books clearly indicate they werent.Great aircraft YES, but not quite like they are in our GAME.

I would like to see some changes personally but i doubt it will ever happen.Perhaps those people like voss who claimed i was wrong to think AH has it wrong could show me some accounts that might swing my view ?

[F4UDOA]

No arguement here.

Frankly I would be surprised if anyone would disgree.

Do you think the Mustang is too durable here??

The P-38 I believe is too tough. However I don't think there is as much discrepince between the toughest and weakest in AH. I think we have a 1 to 5 scale in AH instead of a 1 to 10 in durability.

Sounds like a good book. Have to get a copy.

[john9001]

don't get your leather panties in a bunch, what you read was an opinion

[Gixer]

I've always found the tails to come off quite nicely from a P38 :-)



...-Gixer
The Horse Soldiers

[Charon]

Maybe I should quote some Cadin.

Charon

[Wilbus]

An Opinion made out of facts John.

P38 is seems far too durable, P51 seem a bit durable, no planes what so ever brake in dives, the P51 wings can brake fairly easy thanks to its high speed handeling.

P47 takes WAY too little dammage, took two hispano rounds from a spit a few hours ago (in P47 D30) and lost the whole wing. Yes the P47 is described as the toughest  fighter, together with the F4u, to serve in the war, not only by its own pilots, but by LW pilots aswell.

vulnerability and lack of maneuverability

yeah right, lack of maneuvarbility, it can outturn any other E fighter in the game with eas and sustain turn with many others, only bad thing is the low speed roll rate which can be compensated by engine thrust (and even creating nice flip flop moves at the same time).

[-ammo-]

wil--

you think the P-47 is too manueverable in AH?

[Puke]

I was speaking to a WW2 P-38 pilot who knows Gunthar Ral and he told me a little story about how Gunthar is a really nice guy and really diplomatic and won't say anything negative about anyone or anything.  He'd asked Gunthar about the Germans' opinion of the P38 and kept getting the same polite answer.  He finally cornered him and asked him the truth and what Ral basically said (I'm not quoting, but this is the gist of what was said) was that they'd let their trainee pilots go after the P38s.  

I thought that was interesting.

[Guppy]

Originally posted by Wilbus
An Opinion made out of facts John.

Yep, definitely. The paragraph below is from Johannes Steinhoff's memoirs of the MTO:

"Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were, 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."

Why the disparity? A couple of ideas come to mind:

1) The MTO air war had more medium and low-altitude combat than the ETO. ETO pilots seem to have generally thought the P-38 performed better at low altitudes, and its gentle stall would be a significant edge when turning hard at low altitudes.

2) The P-38's manoeuvrability depends greatly on proper flap usage. The MTO pilots seem to have been, on the whole, more comfortable with their aircraft, and may have employed their flaps better.

As for vulnerability, the P-38's big problem seems to have been fire. If an engine was hit and caught fire, the pilot would be forced to abandon ship even though the other engine was fine. (Gixer--IJN Zero pilot Takeo Tanimizu also commented that the tail was a weak point and would break when hit with 20mm. )

The same problem with fire was experienced in the Pacific, but P-38 pilots there seem convinced of the type's better survivability despite this. Perhaps that reflects a greater preoccupation with mechanical failure than battle damage.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by -ammo-
wil--

you think the P-47 is too manueverable in AH?

He's talking about the P-38.  Hence the reference to engine thrust affecting roll rate as the P-38 has two engines to play with.

[GRUNHERZ]

The P38 doesnt seem too terribly tough to me and I only now fly my Gustav with the standard armament of a single MG151/20 and twin MG131.  However I don't see the P38 too much and I have seen them survive my 30mm fire so there might be cause to look into it. As for the P51 it does seem a bit tough and I wonder why it doesnt get so many radiator hits from 6OC as the FW190D9. P47 seems just a little bit weak - but it's a big target and have an easy time aiming at it and hitting consistently especially in a top profile shot.

The toughest planes in AH are the F6F and F4F, the F4F is very very hard.

[worr]

Originally posted by Guppy
Why the disparity? A couple of ideas come to mind:

Here are a couple more, Guppy.

1) The first operational P-38 squadron got going the day after black thursday, October 14th, 1943. The 38 was an easy mark, because it was the only mark. Only two squadrons were active in late 1943 and they didn't shine well at all--green, out numbered, and with such great range there were no other fighters around! Worse they were tied to close escort and got clobbered in this stupid set up.

2) Engine problems were notorious in the ETO for "der Gabelschwanz Teufel." May 38s were exploding in air, or catching fire, without a single shot being fired by the enemy.

3) Compressability. Most ETO fights were at high alt...and the 38 could never give case, not until the P-38J-25-LO with dive flaps.

4) Visibility. Get the first vis is important in combat...and the 38 was an easy contact in the sky...with its twin booms.

I've talked to aces like Galland, who have all made the same summerary dismissal of the FTD in the ETO...and that is the comparison with the ME-110. That should tell you something..as teh ME-110 was anything but the P-38. Thrust to weight ratio, total horse power (up to 3,400 HP!), wing aspect...numbers close to a glider, stall characteristics for slow flight, turning radius at low alt, and firepower. The ME-110 had no comparison to the 38 in all these aspects, yet every time you hear the LW run down the 38 in the ETO you catch this comparison. Its very tellling...and shallow.

I met a 38 driver here in North Dakota who knocked down 8 FW190s in a day. And have visited with other 38 drivers who swore by their 38s ability to take on any 109 or FW below 20,000 feet. But the problem was it was too big an ac for high alt fights.

Worr, out

P.S. Yea, I'm from Warbirds...just lurking here. But I know all the founders of AH and have great respect for many friends who made the move over here from there.

[thrila]

Out of curiosity, what was the german view of the tiffie, Hazed?

[BUG_EAF322]

If u cannot kill with 2 rounds of 30 mm ammo it sucks


Hazed put it on ur the wabble of the week

[BUG_EAF322]

err the prize the wabble helmet