Best Pacific Fighter?

[Hunter368]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[airboiy]

hey, what about the "tony"? why no mention?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

hey, what about the "tony"? why no mention?

Because for the most part it got mauled....

 

[Hunter368]

hey, what about the "tony"? why no mention?

Good plane, not great, but good. Too few, even fewer spare parts to keep them flying, even fewer good Japanese pilots who knew how to fly them properly.

 

[renrich]

If one believes that the P38 (which I do) belongs on the "premier" list of US fighters, along with P47,P51, F4U and F6F, the P38 was a long way in front of the other "premier" fighters being deployed and in combat in the Pacific. The first combat in the "Pacific" for P38 was on Aug 9, 1942, when two Lightnings shot down two Jap flying boats near Alaska. On Aug 22, 1942, the 67th FS made up of P400s and P38s arrived at Henderson Field, Guadalcanal. By October, 42, there were 60 P38s in the PTO but they were plagued with problems which hindered their getting into combat. First combat for the P38 in the SW Pacific is on Dec 27, 1942 over New Guinea. Interesting that the airplane had been in theatre since August but not in combat until December. The next "premier" fighter to be deployed in the PTO was the F4U, in February, 1943.

 

[kool kitty89]

Agree on the P-47, but let's not focus too much this particular discussion (albeit started by me) as it belong here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/p51-vs-p47-273-12.html
And this one has some interesting discussions on it: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fw-190-vs-spit-p-51-p-47-a-4849.html

One interesting thing to think about
(From the opening of the second thread):

There was an interesting documentary on the N24 a German documentary and news TV channel about the Fw-190. They talked about the development and the Butcher Bird in action. They interviewed several members of the Wilde Sau unit and several other Luftwaffe units. The show is coming back on TV tonight and I will have to watch it again for names of the pilots. They also interviewed several USAAF pilots who flew against the Fw-190.

All of the Luftwaffe pilots had these things to say about the allied aircraft.

They said the Spitfire was a superb aircraft and in straight up one on one fighting they were more scared of the Spitfire than the P-51D. The one they really did not like flying against was the P-47. They said it was a very hard aircraft to take down and a worthy opponent.

One USAAF pilot (name not remembered until I watch the documentary again tonight) who flew all 3 of the mentioned allied aircraft said he really enjoyed flying the Spitfire. He said it was easy and a joy to fly. The P-51D on the other hand he said he did not enjoy very much. He said the only advantage it had over the Fw-190 and even the Bf-109 was its long range, saying it was especially hard to get the upper hand of the Fw-190D-9 with a P-51D.

The one that he preferred to fight the Fw-190 in was the P-47 due to its heavy armament and good armour and robust engine.

He even went as far as saying that the Fw-190D was probably the best fighter overall produced in WW2.

And... Back to the Pacific.