P-38 or Mosquito?

[cheddar cheese]

Which was better, at the moment i think the mossie, but i wont vote yet...

[Andrew]

The Mossie witout a doubt.

[cheddar cheese]

You see thats what I think too, but at the moment Lightning Guy is trying to convince me that the P-38 was better, I hope he manages to because I dont like the Mosquito.

[Lightning Guy]

Ok. A review of my arguments from else where. The only true mulit-role Mossie was the FB marks like the FB.VI. The Lightning had this version beaten in virtually every aspect of performance and maneuverability. The Lightning was extremely versatile with any one version being capable of serving as a escort-fighter, interceptor, skip-bomber, dive-bomber, tank-buster, etc. Other P-38s were modified to carry a Norden sight or BTO radar and actually led P-38s on bombing missions. The P-38M would have been one of the outstanding nightfighters of the war had it lasted. One P-38 was even successfully tested carrying 2 torps. And don't forget the something like 1400 F-4 and F-5 photo-recon models.

[plan_D]

Yes, the Lightning could do the bomber role but the Mosquito was better in it. The Lightning was better as a fighter, but the Mosquito was better as a bomber and it had a proper anti-shipping title to its name.
I was waiting for this thread to appear.

[Lightning Guy]

The Lightning sank a lot of shipping in the MTO, PTO, and CBI. Had the AAF been interested in torpedo-bombing the Lightning would have been one of the best torpedo bombers of the war. So the Lightning was very capable in the anti-shipping role.

[plan_D]

No. Any planes armed with bombs can dive bomb a ship, this is called dive bombing. It is not an anti-shipping role, and 'could of' isn't a did, so the Lightning does not have anti-shipping to its role.

[cheddar cheese]

ive gone for the lightning

[Lightning Guy]

Several planes were capable of dive-bombing but the P-38 was better than most of them. It's counter-rotating props (which the Mossie lacked btw) meant that once it entered it's dive there was no torgue pulling it one way or the other allowing a very accurate run. I'm not sure where you are going with the "anti-shipping" thing unless you are refering to the FB.XVIII but they weren't produced that much because a standard Mosquito could sink ships just as well. And the Lighting was just as effective at skip-bombing or rocket attacks (carrying more rockets with a heavier warhead). Besides all that, the FB.XVIII wasn't designed as an anti-ship plane so much as an anti-U-boat plane.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i still think the mossie was better.......................

[cheddar cheese]

i dont and it appears the p-38 is winning

[Maestro]

No. Any planes armed with bombs can dive bomb a ship, this is called dive bombing. It is not an anti-shipping role, and 'could of' isn't a did, so the Lightning does not have anti-shipping to its role.

I don't know a lot about bombers, but I vote for the Mosquito. I think it could take much dammage than the P-38.

And concerning the dive bombing, I agree with Plan_D. Any plane armed with bombs could sink a ship. After all, wich plane sank the Tirpitz ? I think it was a Spit, wasn't it ?

[cheddar cheese]

both the planes are great. its hard to choose between the 2

[plan_D]

A U-Boat is a ship(sub-ship, submarine), Lightning. Shall I say 'anti-vessel' to make it easier. The Mosquito was a superior bomber, there shouldn't be any argument about it, because it's true. Yes, the P-38 was a better dive bomber than most, not the Mosquito.

[Lightning Guy]

I've never heard of a Mossie dive-bombing. But without the counter-rotating props it wouldn't have been as stable as the Lightning. P-38 better dive-bomber.

Maestro . . . the Tirpitz was sunk by a Lanc. And I doubt the Mosquito could take more damage that a Lightning. There are several instances of Lightings suffering mid-air collisions and returning to base on one engine.