P-38 Lightning vs P-51 Mustang: Which was the Better Fighter?

[GrauGeist]

Wow that's some real interesting stuff in the "P-38 as a Bomber " thread,
so anyone who likes proper data related to this thread - best check it out.

Yep...I think everyone is seeing what's going on.

You cannot back your claims, so you resort to deflecting, name calling and then calling me a bully.

And after all this, you still haven't provided a single source for your claims of the P-38 Pathfinder's alledged shortcomings.

Do you want a tissue for that tear?

 

[GrauGeist]

All the shortcomings of the "P-38 as a Bomber" are noted in yep, you guessed it - that specific thread. Go figure..

What are your sources for the Pathfinder's performance?

 

[GrauGeist]

So again, instead of providing a source, any source, you're resorting to clicking little icons on the posts.

Don't you think that you might spend this time reading about the P-38 Pathfinder and learning a little more about it so that you can engage in a qualified, historical discussion?

 

[GrauGeist]

Keep clicking those icons...pretty much proves my point...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

James - stop being an asshole, you're getting one warning.

 

[BLine22]

Hypothetically, fake the report stating the aircraft is unsuited for the ETO so you can use it where you really want to use it in the Pacific which was low priority.

 

[BLine22]

Updating the aircraft to the L model shows some interest in the program. Don't forget that 38s and 47s cost twice as much as -51s.

 

[BLine22]

Whaaa?

The USAAF priority was the 'glamour' 8th AF, in the ETO, & only the best was good enough for them, ( not the P-38).
To state "fake" reports from Air Material Command is frankly, delusional.

As I stated, Hypothetical!

 

[BLine22]

I know its a big word, go ahead and look it up.

 

[pbehn]

Are these posts submitted by grown men?

 

[pbehn]

Whaaa?

The USAAF priority was the 'glamour' 8th AF, in the ETO, & only the best was good enough for them, ( not the P-38).
To state ( even as "hypothetical") "fake" reports from Air Material Command is frankly, delusional.


Edit: Clarified the issue of the stated "hypothetical" idea - as completely mentally deranged.

In military terms what is a "glamour" airforce? Also please show how the this glamour force could demand the best. My unlce was a spotter US navy gunners during and after D Day. P38s were used near the allied fleet because whatever their strengths and weaknesses they were easy to tell from SE fighters.

 

[gjs238]

Are these posts submitted by grown men?

No

 

[pbehn]

The 8th AF was the USAAF's 'main feature' - taking the 'lions share' of resources/publicity/wins & losses in the toughest fighting.

You are of course correct, pbehn - about the unmistakable appearance of the P-38,
& although Eisenhower went sight-seeing in a 2-seat P-51, other flying US Generals chose the P-38 for that reason, AFAIR.

This point you have made - does give lie to another of Sh-ter's bogus assumptions, since the LW also knew what Lightnings
looked like & could generally see them 1st, (P- 38's being big-as birds with blind-spots) & make the call to engage, or evade them.

What is "the lions share"? Lions share of Carriers? Lions share of carrier based planes? Lions share of B29s? As I see it the USA sent resources to where they were most needed and suited.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Sure FBJ, I apologise for allowing G-G to dog me into a response that you think is.. me being an asshole.
& for those interested in the whole 'droop snoot' deal, SR6 has summarised it well, in the 'P-38 as Bomber' thread.

Go to the threads marked basic and re-read the rules of this forum - a challenge to someone's comments
is welcomed but if it becomes out of hand those warned will see cyber space very quickly - I DON'T WANT TO WARN YOU AGAIN!

 

[BLine22]

James, you are obviously a P-38 hater, but don't discount the nose mounted armament. Wing mounted guns converge at one spot in front of the firing aircraft. Nose mounted armament in concentrated straight ahead making for easier shooting.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Just read the report written by the USAAF Air Material Command listing the P-38's fundamental deficiencies.

If you ever fully read that report you'll find it was prepared by pilots who had little multi engine experience. Col Rau (20th FG) prepared and equally damaging report in June, 1944. I think pilots of the 475th FG would disagree with many of the findings of both reports.

P-38 missed out on even a few basics like paddle-props & a blown bubble canopy.

Any modifications would have to be at the approval of the AAF. Lockheed developed the P-38K and it was discarded. A one piece blown canopy for the P-38 was not high on anyone's priority list. Kelly Johnson had several other mods he would have liked to see implemented (one of them a stick in lieu of a yoke) but the AAF had the final say.

 

[Shortround6]

I would note that the P-38s props were 11 ft 6 in diameter to begin ( a foot bigger in dia than a P-39 prop and 6in bigger than a P-40 prop) with and by the time it got to the J model each propeller had gained over 65lbs in weight from the prototype or YP-38 props.
I don't know when the change/s were made or what they entailed but this constant notion that the P-38 was in desperate need of "paddle" blade props seems a bit mistaken.

The Army certainly seems to have experimented with a number of different prop-blades on other aircraft at times. Perhaps tests of a P-38 with different blades will come to light.

I would also note that the Convair plant in Nashville Tenn got a contract to build 2000P-38Ls on June 26th 1944, which sort of puts the idea that p-38s were unwanted out to pasture. Convair only managed to build 113 by the time the war ended in August of 1945.
This also shows how far in advance you had to plan in order to get usable numbers of aircraft out of a new or retooled factory.
The Factory had made Vultee Vengeance dive bombers among other aircraft before the P-38 Contract.

 

[lapin-red]

IDIOT !!

You get 2 x P51 for the price of 1 x P38. So the question should be: Which is the better in a dogfight: 2 x P51 vs 1 x P38 - so P51 obviously wins.

Turning circle is the other key factor, which the P51 also wins. As to 'fightability' well only a pilot who has flown both knows that. And you wont get many of them on a Walt's forum.

The actual real answer is course: ME 109 (or perhaps Spifire) becasue they were not flown by fat overweight americans.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

IDIOT !!

You get 2 x P51 for the price of 1 x P38. So the question should be: Which is the better in a dogfight: 2 x P51 vs 1 x P38 - so P51 obviously wins.

Turning circle is the other key factor, which the P51 also wins. As to 'fightability' well only a pilot who has flown both knows that. And you wont get many of them on a Walt's forum.

The actual real answer is course: ME 109 (or perhaps Spifire) becasue they were not flown by fat overweight americans.

Who you calling an idiot?

Actually don't even answer, after reading your other postings which are just inflamatory, you will not be tolerated. Goodbye...

 

[GrauGeist]

This right here:

The actual real answer is course: ME 109 (or perhaps Spifire) becasue they were not flown by fat overweight americans.

Sounds remarkably like something the "political officer" would approve of, eh?

What a way to start a very short and un-memorable membership to the forums by being a complete dumbass...