Best Pacific Fighter?

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Not exactly what I meant Hunter - only in ETO was 38L negligible in contribution as a fighter-fighter.

They went to Pacific and Phillipines for example but even in that context most of the last opportunities for 38 groups to score was Formosa from Phillipines

Having said that, it made more contribution than the P-47N and P-51H and F7F and F-8F - all late entries in the Great War
.

Yeh I corrected my statement in the next post after that one. But thanks.

[kool kitty89]

sycom3, I think you mean TWO/twin engine training, not one...

And lack of adequate twin engine training was a serious problem. The P-38 also had some special characteristics on engine outs that had to be taught: the plane would roll tward the live engine (opposite of torque) and you had to throttle back the live engine and then slowly throttle up to maintain control. If you went full throttle with the good engine, the plane would flip over and crash.


It didn't take a an above avrage pilot to get the most out of a P-38 much moreso than other a/c. (you always need a good pilot to fly to the limit) An average pilot who'd been properly trained and understood the capabilities and limits of the a/c should do fine. But all to often this was not the scenario.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Hunter,
How else can you explain the excellent results of the P38 squads in the Pacific?

How do you explain the poor mission/loss, compared to the P-47/51, ratio in ETO?

By the time the P-38 was widely operational, in the PTO, the shallow pilot pool the Japanese had to draw on to recover their losses was getting very shallow indeed. Not to mention I don't think anyone here would ever claim or think that the Japanese Army or Navy could really give the same sort of competition the LW could to the USAF.

You don't really think the Japanese could compete with the LW in quality of planes or pilots from 41 and on do you? The P-38 was going up vs sub quality planes and pilots (and tactics) in the PTO.

Gabreski's 28 kills in the ETO to me is better than Bong's 40 in PTO. Much more impressive was Gabby's 28 kills to me.

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I think it is simply that the 38 was big and distinctive. The LW pilot who saw it first had easy recognition and could choose to fight or flee.. so most of the fights were in situations where the 38 did not have a significant tactical advantage in position.

That is my theory..

P-38 Profile

And the P-47 was also big and distincitve. The Spitfire was distincive but small, and the early Mustangs were sometimes mistaken for 109's. (resulting in some freindly fire incedents)

[Hunter368]

Good point, not sure we can blame it on the P-38 size or distincitive looks.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

P-38 Profile

And the P-47 was also big and distincitve. The Spitfire was distincive but small, and the early Mustangs were sometimes mistaken for 109's. (resulting in some freindly fire incedents)

Head on from a mile away a 47 looked like a 190 as it did running parallel. Bomber gunners studied 47/190 and 51/109/spit profiles

B-17 bgunners were egalitarian - they shot at everything

The 38 looked like nothing else in the air in the ETO..

[kool kitty89]

From that POV the P-38's looks were a big advantage.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

From that POV the P-38's looks were a big advantage.

It is as far as getting shot at by bomber gunners - but not if you are 'hunting and for equal eyesight I can spot your P-38 1.5x as far away and make a decision to stalk or slink away.

I may be wrong in my thesis. What is your explanation for relatively poor performance versus the Mustang?

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I may be wrong in my thesis. What is your explanation for relatively poor performance versus the Mustang?

The P-51 was a better plane in the hands of an average pilot?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

The P-51 was a better plane in the hands of an average pilot?

I personally think the P-51 was a better air superiority fighter - period. It is a relatively easy airplane to fly, it has a lot of good characteristics under ordinary flight profiles, it is dangerous with a full fuselage tank, but it is a forgiving aircraft which gives you warning on almost every stall condition.

If you knew the airplane you had more advantages than disadvantages against every airplane it fought except the Ta 152 and the H would have equalized that a lot.. in a dogfight in the Horizontal it sould avoid all Japanese a/c - but that was the same for every US and Brit fighter.

In my opinion the only US fighter on par with the 51 as an air superiortity fighter against LW was the F4U which didn't have the opportunity to prove this thesis... this is the primary reason the Mustang is held in high esteem.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I personally think the P-51 was a better air superiority fighter - period. It is a relatively easy airplane to fly, it has a lot of good characteristics under ordinary flight profiles, it is dangerous with a full fuselage tank, but it is a forgiving aircraft which gives you warning on almost every stall condition.

If you knew the airplane you had more advantages than disadvantages against every airplane it fought except the Ta 152 and the H would have equalized that a lot.. in a dogfight in the Horizontal it sould avoid all Japanese a/c - but that was the same for every US and Brit fighter.

In my opinion the only US fighter on par with the 51 as an air superiortity fighter against LW was the F4U which didn't have the opportunity to prove this thesis... this is the primary reason the Mustang is held in high esteem.

I agree most of your post, 90% anyways.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

I agree most of your post, 90% anyways.

Remember I am not talking about say a Spit XIVor XXI or a Tempest V or a P-47M/N at 30,000 feet and above or a very rare Fw 190D-13 in perfect condition.

Every a/c is atrade off but the 51 was so clean that it had better performance at the tag end of a performance profile when every one else was close to fagging out...

It was NOT the Best WWII fighter. I do believe it was the best Air Speriority fighter based on the level of competition and it's ultimate contributions in this domain.

[Hunter368]

Under those conditions I am more inclined to agree with you. I do love the range the P-51 offered more then anything, it could reach out and touch you where most fighters could not. Those other fighters that could reach you at that range could not offer you the performance the P-51 could.

[kool kitty89]

It is interesting to note though that the 2 Highest scoring USAAF pilots in the ETO did so with P-47's early war to boot.

I seem to remember some pilots' oppinios of the P-47 that had transferred to the P-51 had said, while the Mustang was a 'hotter' dogfighter thy'd still rather have the Jug's securety. (plus I don't think there was any fighter in common service with as comfortable a cocpit as the P-47)

THe P-51 was probably a better air superiorety fighter and escort thean the Jug, and I'd imagine from the Bomber crews' POV they'd prefer to see P-51's, but from a fighter pilots view I'd imagine the T-Bolt to be more desireable. (especially pilots that had experienced the ruggedness first hand, and likely had been saved by it)

There were few fighter that could be bounced with enemy 20mm balzing around the craft and still manage to take some hits and make it home or even possibly stay in the fight. (Robert S. Johnson'd P-47C had ~20 20mm shel holes as well as hundreds of .30 cal hits from his near fatal experience)

The Corsair would come close in ruggedness though. And its overall capabilities were better.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

It is interesting to note though that the 2 Highest scoring USAAF pilots in the ETO did so with P-47's early war to boot.

I seem to remember some pilots' oppinios of the P-47 that had transferred to the P-51 had said, while the Mustang was a 'hotter' dogfighter thy'd still rather have the Jug's securety. (plus I don't think there was any fighter in common service with as comfortable a cocpit as the P-47)

THe P-51 was probably a better air superiorety fighter and escort thean the Jug, and I'd imagine from the Bomber crews' POV they'd prefer to see P-51's, but from a fighter pilots view I'd imagine the T-Bolt to be more desireable. (especially pilots that had experienced the ruggedness first hand, and likely had been saved by it)

There were few fighter that could be bounced with enemy 20mm balzing around the craft and still manage to take some hits and make it home or even possibly stay in the fight. (Robert S. Johnson'd P-47C had ~20 20mm shel holes as well as hundreds of .30 cal hits from his near fatal experience)

The Corsair would come close in ruggedness though. And its overall capabilities were better.

KK- The 56th FG had the two top aces in the ETO in Gabreski and Johnson.. Several other 'all P-47' scorers included Glenn Duncan and Schilling and Mahurin.. but remember that the 56th was in combat 6 months before the 354th FG, 9 months before the 357th FG and 4 months before the 352nd (which started out in P-47s). Johnson had all of his scores by March 8, when the 4th and 355th FG had just converted to Mustangs...

The 4th FG, 352nd FG, 355th FG pilots that flew both and went on to round out the top 5 scoring groups in the 8th said 'no contest' in discussing merits of Mustang vs P-47 in air to air combat. All of them got most of their air to air scores in the 51.. the only combined P-47/P-51 groups that scored less in a Mustang was the 353rd and 78th - both converting in December, 1944 timeframe when the LW was hard to find relative to 9 months before.

All of them started out way behind the 56th in scoring. From the time the 355th, 4th and 352 and 357th FG received their Mustangs they outscored the 56th in the air and every one of those groups except 357th outscored them on the Ground.

The 354th (8th/9th) far outscored the 56th from the time they started combat six months after the 56th FG and nearly caught up with them in total air to air..They were forced to fly 47s from Dec 44 to Feb 45 and were glad to get back in 51's despite the ground support role.

So, what conclusions do you draw relative to Mustang vs P-47 as an air superiority fighter?

Ruggedness is important for those times when the enemy fighter had the advantage - not so important when you had the advantage.