Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

FLYBOYJ · 10-02-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

But the bottom line is this. The Spit, 109 and 190 were better planes if you wanted to mix it up one on one. The fact that the P38 could speed away from trouble was its saviour many times over.

Don't forget that 2nd engine!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-02-2005, 02:21 PM

The 2nd engine is what would sell me the P-38 however in the ETO I would rather have a Fw-190, Bf-109 or Spitfire.

wmaxt · 10-02-2005, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

The P38 was origionally designed to be an interceptor, not a dogfighter. The fact that it could at at least be competetive in a fighter role says volumes about its basic design. As a fighter escort, it did what it was supposed to do. Keep German fighters away from the bombers. But as an air superiority fighter, it wasnt dominating enough.

But the bottom line is this. The Spit, 109 and 190 were better planes if you wanted to mix it up one on one. The fact that the P38 could speed away from trouble was its saviour many times over.

The massive problems and the German kills ammounted to 451 P-38s lost
and only occured in the 8th AF.

The P-38 could mix it up very well with 109/190s to a 4:1 P-38 ratio. 451 P-38s were shot down for ~1,700 german aircraft (almost exclusively fighters) in the 8th AF. This was F/G/H models, close escort, outnumbered by more experianced Germans and by inexperianced AAF pilots. Later in '44 with J/L models the ratio for some groups reached 20:1.

The L model was parellel with the D mustang and could beat it in every way except cruise speed.

In Art Heidens paraphrased words - It was beautiful, the panicked German pilot trying everything twist, turn, climb, dive or split-s the doomed German just couldn't get away from a P-38L.

The P-38 could deal 1:1 with its contemporaries. And as you say if need be it could leave them in the dust. I'm not saying it was hands down the best but even when the facts are twisted it carried off a better than 1:1 ratio. That says it all.

wmaxt

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-02-2005, 09:05 PM

451 is really not a lot if you think about it, especially since that includes mechanical failures and other losses besides being shot down.

wmaxt · 10-03-2005, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

451 is really not a lot if you think about it, especially since that includes mechanical failures and other losses besides being shot down.

No its not, and your right to in that it represents collisions, training, mechanical, and enemy fire both AAA and fighters.

When an H can mix it up with a Griffon Spit and fly away with ALL the sucessful pounces would you really rather be in the Spit?

wmaxt

Gnomey · 10-03-2005, 03:51 PM

Nice info wmaxt. The P-38 did a lot better than I thought it did in the ETO.

wmaxt · 10-03-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnomey

Nice info wmaxt. The P-38 did a lot better than I thought it did in the ETO.

Thanks.

The P-38s main problem in the ETO was that it was available while the 8th AF was proving self escorted bombers is a great way to commit suicide. For instance it was claimed the early P-38s had less range than the P-51s but the 300gal drop tanke were NEVER used in the ETO, every where else they were flying up to 800mi (each way) missions.

wmaxt

cheddar cheese · 10-03-2005, 04:13 PM

Why were the 300gals not used in the ETO?

wmaxt · 10-03-2005, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

Why were the 300gals not used in the ETO?

As far as I can tell they were never requested, The P-38s were never adequately supported in the ETO.

Another example is combat training, combat experianced pilots were seldom given more that cockpit checks. New pilots in P-38s got around 20hrs in type then off to combat. New pilots in P-51s were given 50hrs just in combat orientation prior to combat.

Problems like compressability and engine bugs occured in the P-51s (Engine), and P-47s (compressability they got dive flaps too) but the P-38s problems were delt with in combat (and in front of everyone) because the other planes weren't as ready for combat as the P-38. The amazing thing is the not ready P-38 still did better than the fixed versions of the others!

wmaxt

syscom3 · 10-03-2005, 04:50 PM

Part of the reason NO fighters got belly tanks in England is the generals wanted to prove that unescorted bombing worked according to theory.

Once that issue was settled, belly tanks of all capacities began to show up.

wmaxt · 10-03-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Part of the reason NO fighters got belly tanks in England is the generals wanted to prove that unescorted bombing worked according to theory.

Once that issue was settled, belly tanks of all capacities began to show up.

Yep I mentioned that above. There NEVER were 300 gal tanks for P-38s in the ETO.

BTW: P-39s tested the first belly tanks in the AAF in '41 (they were forbiden in the AAF until '42). Lockheed flew a P-38F 3,100mi in early '42. The Lockheed tanks were the most streamlined and the 165gal tanks were used in the pacific on P-47s.

The Bolero mission flying P-38s to Britain finaly proved that drop tanks were practicle and were useful in extending range.

wmaxt

CurzonDax · 10-03-2005, 10:57 PM

For the ETO I disagree. While it was a great aircraft it was better suited for the PTO. There were plenty of aircraft in the ETO that were just as good as a P-38.[/quote]

I agree. Especially with the aircraft that would be available within a year such as P-47 and P-51s. But I still love all that concentrated firepower. Still, again and some can correct me on this, wasn't the Beaufighter also more effective in warmer climates such as Africa, the Med, PTO, and Asia-Burma.

:{)

102first_hussars · 10-03-2005, 11:17 PM

I Picked The Hawker Hurricane because it was the backbone of the RAF From 1939-1942, It was the Empires mostly largely produced aircraft at the time, it accounted for 75% of the Casualties inflicted on the Luftwaffe during the battle of Britain, It wasnt as fast or had the firepower that the BF-109 did but, it had superior agility, Its Ruggedness and reliability was excellent, its firepower and Endurance was much better than the Spitfire during this time period, And during the Battle Of Britain, Canada had fought alongside the RAF with its Deployment of only 100 Hurricanes and shot down over 200 german planes and only sufferd 12 casualties.

carpenoctem1689 · 10-03-2005, 11:59 PM

The hurricane up against a 190A would be in alot of trouble, because the 190 is faster, manoueverable, but cant turn as tight, and is all around just a better aircraft in terms of statistics. one of the few shortcomings was that early 190s stayed close to home from engine overheat troubles, giving the hurricane the reliability advantage, and the hurricane could take more punishment...but the 190 was still a better aircraft, even better than the spit v when it appeared.

102first_hussars · 10-04-2005, 12:41 AM

carpenoctem1689

YOUR RIGHT THE 190 WAS A BETTER AIRCRAFT THAN THE HURRICANE BUT ONLY BY A SMALL MARGIN, BECAUSE BY THE TIME THE FOCKE WOLF CAME OUT, THE HURRICANE HAD RECEIVED MAJOR UPRADES, THE 4X30.CAL MGS WERE REPLACED WITH 4X20MM CANNONS,
THE ENGINE WAS REPLACED WITH THE ROLLS ROYCE MERLIN V-12 ENGINE PROVIDING A BONE SHATTERING 1800HP AND NOT TO MENTION, THE HURRICANE HAD FUEL INJECTION WHILE THE FW-190 WAS STILL USING A CARBORATOR MEANING THE 190 COULDNT DO A STRAIGHT DIVE WHICH AT THE TIME WAS THE MOST EFFECTIVE EVASIVE MANOUVER. SO IF THE 190 POINTED HIS NOSE DOWN TOO FAR THE ENGINE WOULD SHUT OFF, HENSE IN A COMBAT SITUATION SOURKRAUT WAS SO SCREWD.