...searching for the best USAAF interceptor...

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by Erich

My data comes right from the vetrs themselves gents as I have often repeated. Again the P-38 when it was flown by US ETO vets have said nothing could compare to it in the ground attack role except for the Bubble top P-47 models. The P-51 was the supreme high altitude escort fighter plus having the range. the stats during war and after and by test pilots that never served in combat may say otherwise but I have to bow out to the veteran memories and take their word(s) for it. the simple fact is they were there and none of us were and the closest we have gotten to compare manueverabiltiy and firepower over and to a Bf 109G or Fw 190A is through combat reports, fighter group histories and if we are lucky enough to interview at some length still living veterans.

Reports from combat vets are interesting and valuable, but should not be taken as gospel - for the simple reason that they frequently disagree with each other. If you ask vets 'which weapon was best' (whether army, air force, or whatever) you will get different responses, even from people who have used the same range of weapons.

People have different personal preferences for a variety of reasons. It may simply be that they have got used to one weapon, discovered how to make the most of its strengths and minimise its weaknesses, and then are not happy when given another one. I assume that is why some German Experten favoured the Bf 109 over the Fw 190 to the end - as any objective assessment would favour the Fw.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[V-1710]

Since the Bell FM-1 Airacuda didn't make it into production, I have to vote for the P-38!

[Erich]

Tony have never taken their word as gospel, but in this case you have veterans flying the machines we are talking about and none of us have flown these crates in combat. the first word is listen to the vets in association with this very thread.......and yes there will be a difference in opinion naturally

[Twitch]

The firepower of 8 M-2s and the extreme amount of ammo would have been sufficient to kill any bomber the Japanese or Germans fielded or could have fielded. As it was Ju 88s, G3Ms, G4Ms, Do 17s, He 111s and other twins disintegrated into seething balls of wreckage when attacked. Quit arguing for the sake of it. Everyone here knows that 300 rounds of API from a 3 second P-47 burst at gun harmonized optimum distance would produce a 3 foot square zone of destruction on a Mavis, Emily, Condor or Ju 488 or anything else.

[Marshall_Stack]

I vote for the P-38, but it would have been interesting if the USAAF could have put turbocharged Allisons on this plane....

USAF Museum - McDonnell XP-67

[Erich]

I'm still going for the TA 152H-1

[V-1710]

Originally Posted by Marshall_Stack

I vote for the P-38, but it would have been interesting if the USAAF could have put turbocharged Allisons on this plane....

USAF Museum - McDonnell XP-67

All the P-38's DID have turbocharged Allison V-1710's, except for the model 322 'Castrated Lightning' that was supplied to the R.A.F., and later returned. They were used by the U.S.A.A.C. for training purposes.

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by Twitch

The firepower of 8 M-2s and the extreme amount of ammo would have been sufficient to kill any bomber the Japanese or Germans fielded or could have fielded. As it was Ju 88s, G3Ms, G4Ms, Do 17s, He 111s and other twins disintegrated into seething balls of wreckage when attacked. Quit arguing for the sake of it. Everyone here knows that 300 rounds of API from a 3 second P-47 burst at gun harmonized optimum distance would produce a 3 foot square zone of destruction on a Mavis, Emily, Condor or Ju 488 or anything else.

Given the fact that both the fighter and the target will be moving, affected by buffeting, aim wander etc, the idea of a "three foot square zone" is fantasy. Just look at gun camera footage of ground or sea strafing attacks - the projectile strikes are spread all over the place. A thirty-foot square zone, peppered with small holes, would be more like it. Please note that in the BoB German bombers (small and lightly protected by later standards) still got back to base with hundreds of bullets holes in them.

The Luftwaffe discovered that the concentrated destruction achieved by one big HE shell hit was more effective than the dispersed damage caused by a large number of small hits. That's why they were working on 55mm aircraft guns in 1945.

Isn't "arguing for the sake of it" what these forums are all about?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[V-1710]

The concentrated firepower of twin 37mm cannons and a host of .30 and .50 machine guns would have made the FM-1 a most formidable intercepter, despite the fact that it was slow and difficult to fly. Of course, it's slow speed and poor climb may have been factors but nonetheless the FM-1 was probably the intercepter by which others were judged. Did I mention it was ugly, too?

[Marshall_Stack]

Originally Posted by V-1710

All the P-38's DID have turbocharged Allison V-1710's, except for the model 322 'Castrated Lightning' that was supplied to the R.A.F., and later returned. They were used by the U.S.A.A.C. for training purposes.

I meant the XP-67 having turbocharged Allisons whould have been nice.

[wmaxt]

Tony, Eric,

I to, belive the Pilots accounts are important and would in no way dissmiss them. I do want to say though that when a pilot came from the Pacific to the ETO they all (at least those I've seen) were dissapointed in the lack of 300gal drop tanks that would have pushed the P-38s range to and beyond the P-51s. The lack of tactics to use the P-38 to its full potential, horrified them. One last thing that must be be added to the mix is the model of P-38 the pilots used prior to transition to the P-51. If it was from a P-38H model under the operating conditions in the ETO, Bad cruise technics, bad fuel, no training, cold cockpits - you've heard it all before, under those conditions the aircraft weren't a match for the P-51 once things were ironed out in the P-51. It easily could have worked the other way. Even Doolittle admitted that neither the P-47 or P-51 would have done any better starting first and from scratch that winter of '43/'44 (Warren Bodie P-38, in an interview with Doolittle). Many pilots like Heiden who flew P-38Ls and P-51s thought the 38 was better for combat.

They were all great aircraft, I think the P-38 was best but in the end it worked out, they all did a great job. After the war economics took over. In peace time cheeper is always the final word!

wmaxt

[Jank]

Wmaxt, Erich indicated that the P-47 was better than the P-38 at handling the late war, high performance German fighters.

What tactics would have aided the P-38 that were not used by the P-47? Both fighters, to be effective, needed to utilize boom 'n zoom team tactics and since most all ETO pilots cut their teeth on the P-47, those tactics were well known and widely employed.

Generally, the tactics of the Japs were inferior to those of the Germans who worked well together as a team. You make it seem as though the Japanese were high tacticians and that the piloting of the P-38 in the PTO reflected that and that when the Americans moved over to the ETO, the Americans were slogging along without the benefit of having honed their skills against a frankly superior foe.

[V-1710]

Originally Posted by Marshall_Stack

I meant the XP-67 having turbocharged Allisons whould have been nice.

Yes, you are right. Lockheed built an improved version of the P-38 powered with the Continental XIV-1430's as the XP-49, and it didn't even perform as well as a P-38J. So, I think it is safe to say that the XP-67 probably would have been better with turbocharged V-1710's.

[Twitch]

Gee Tony I always figured these forums were to discuss alternate possibilities and exhange data on some lesser known aircraft and events during the war not to argue.

Gun camera film of strafing runs has no validity of comparison in attacking bomber boxes. Opening fire at optimum range peering through your gunsight which tells where your guns are harmonized is what fighter pilots did everywhere. Every BoB bomber mentioned above was in actuality shot down by RAF fighters with little .303s even if some did limp home! That logic is like saying the Zertorers' massive armament wasn't effective against B-17s simply becaue some made it home damaged. Why would 8 fifties be less effective? Yes do look at gun camera footage and you'll see scads of twin engined A/C falling to the P-47's firepower. I have never met a P-47 pilot that ever mentioned he was poorly armed.

V-1710 That was a pretty bizarre fighter wasn't it? It always looked like some Popular Mechanix illustrator designed it.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Jank

Wmaxt, Erich indicated that the P-47 was better than the P-38 at handling the late war, high performance German fighters.

What tactics would have aided the P-38 that were not used by the P-47? Both fighters, to be effective, needed to utilize boom 'n zoom team tactics and since most all ETO pilots cut their teeth on the P-47, those tactics were well known and widely employed.

Generally, the tactics of the Japs were inferior to those of the Germans who worked well together as a team. You make it seem as though the Japanese were high tacticians and that the piloting of the P-38 in the PTO reflected that and that when the Americans moved over to the ETO, the Americans were slogging along without the benefit of having honed their skills against a frankly superior foe.

The majority of Pilots that transitioned from P-38s to P-51s did so from early versions of the P-38. A quote from Art Heiden

"Nothing, to these pilots, after the hard winter of '43/'44 could be more beautiful than a P-38L out rolling and tailgating a German fighter straight down, following a spin of split-s or whatever gyration a startled, panicked and doomed German might attempt to innate. You just couldn't get away from a P-38L. Whatever the German could do the P-38L could do better."

Or

"The P-51 was a new plane and we were eager to fly it and were happy with it. It was so easy and comfortable to fly. The P-38 kept us on our toes and constantly busy-far more critical to fly. We were disappointed with the 51s rate of climb and concerned with the reverse stick, especially if fuel was in the fuselage tank, a rash of rough engines from fouled plugs, and cracked heads which dumped coolant. With the 38 you could be at altitude before landfall over the continent, but with the 51 you still had a lot of climbing to do. The P-38 was an interceptor and if both engines were healthy, you could outclimb anyother airplane, and thats what wins dogfights. When your in a dogfight below the treetops, it is way more comfortable in a 38 with its power and stall characteristics, and for that matter at any altitude."

Or Robert Carey

"I was never worried for one minute that if I had to tangle with the Luftwaffe, I was going to be at a dissadvantage, because the airplane (P-3 could just outperform them."

Granted there is some exaggeration here but its clear how they felt Carey site is P-38 Lightning Pilot Briefs: Robert Carey and Heiden's is at http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-2.html

Twitch,

Cruise technics in Europe were high rpm/low manifold pressure this was not good on the engines, causing cool oil temps, lead precipitation, made the cold cockpit worse. In the Pacific/Aleutions they used Higher pressure, lower rpm did not have either the extream cold in the cockpits or the engine issues experienced in Europe and it gets as cold on the ground in the Aleutions as it did at altitude in Europe. BTW this also saves fuel extending range. I've already noted that in Europe the 300 gal drop tanks were never used. Pilots from the Pacific comment of flying technics like differential throttle that were almost unknown in Europe. Training is another issue, In Europe transition was often a few flights in the new aircraft and let them go for it. Many pilots of P-38s in Europe had as little as 20 hours in type and no twin engined training at all. In the Pacific it was normal for new pilots to be orientated and trained a bit prior to combat, this was a policy in the 5th AF. The Robert Carey link above will put some incite on P-38 attitudes in Europe.

I'm not contending the P-38 it the greatest ever, I was a very good aircraft, in my opinion, the best AAF fighter in WWII and one of the best piston fighters ever. The others were great to, and certainly in the ball park, just not quite there.

wmaxt