Bf109 G10/K-4 VS P38 L

[MacArther]

Lets assume that somewhere over Italy these two combatants met. Creature comforts aside (where the P 38 lacked without the heating system), which plane would you prefer to be flying? Why? I would take the P 38 because once I had a good deflection shot or direct line of fire on the Bf109, it would all be over (depending on where I shot). I don't claim to be an expert on how dog fights turn out, so what do you guys think? Would the G10 or K4 simply outfly and out-gun the P38, or would the P38's central amament spell the downfall for another German fighter?

 

[cheddar cheese]

P-38 definately...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

P-38...

 

[wmaxt]

It depends It's been reported that the Me/Bf-109G/K had some advantage above 30,000ft. The 20th FG felt the P-38s were even from 20,000 - 30,000ft and better below 20,000ft.

This was primarily early models but Stienhoff the German comander of Sardinia told Galland (then general of fighters) that the "Lightning had clrear superority in speed and maneuverability". The P-38 were flying from Africa at this time.

I'd choose the P-38

wmaxt

 

[Gnomey]

P-38 for me too...

 

[Soren]

The P-38 definitely had the superior armament compared to the 109, thats for sure. The P-38 was also superior to the G-10 in straight out speed, and enjoyed a distinct advantage over both 109's in dive acceleration.

As for maneuverability though, the P-38 doesn't stand a chance, its easily out-maneuvered by the more agile Bf-109G-10 and K-4, both having a clear advantage in turn-rate, roll-rate, and climb rate over the P-38.

So all in all, if I was flying the P-38 I'd rely on B&Z tactics, while if I'm flying the 109 G-10 or K-4 I'd try to dogfight the P-38.

With that having been said, I'd be most comfortable flying the Bf-109K-4 for sure.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

I thought the P38 out-handled the Me in low-speed engagements?

 

[Soren]

Not even close!

 

[lesofprimus]

This comes down to combat altitude and advantage.... If it was a neutral engagement with two equally talented pilots, I would give it to the -109...

The ordinary -109 pilot should be able to force the -38 pilot to fight his battle, and seeing how the ordinary -109 pilot can combat his aircraft better than the ordinary -38 pilot, I have to agree with Sorens summation...

So all in all, if I was flying the P-38 I'd rely on B&Z tactics, while if I'm flying the 109 G-10 or K-4 I'd try to dogfight the P-38.

Bottom line, get the enemy in posistion to defend himself against your tactics....

My Grandfather said many times, "Stay offensive; defensive pilots die easily..."

 

[Erich]

hasn't this dead horse been covered in the past with pointless comparisons of what if's ? geez guys why do you persist like this ? from about 1 page of good materials then runs amuck with 4 pages of specs which are pointless as well as warped commentaries withou a vet from either side being able to give their own opinions, and granted this is really what is needed to make this a solid debate and not fruitless arguments which are the norm.....

 

[lesofprimus]

Yes it has Erich...

In all these hypotheticals, the discussion always gets mired into the same swamp; pilot proficiency... No matter how good u are, someone out there is better...

 

[Twitch]

2 point to ponder- besides the P-38 pilot being cold the defroster system was so poor it made visibility or lack of a dangerous gambit. Ever drive a car with a crummy heat/defrost system? Yeah it's miserable except no one is sneaking up shooting at you.

The P-38 had no "central armament advantage." The K-4 had a pair of excellent, high velocity 15mms in the upper cowl and either a Mk 103 or 108 30 mm in the prop hub.

I agree with you Erich- these banal fantasy blind dates for aircraft are simply a bunch of spec thrown around. Good pilots make kills not performance specs! Let's sit back and watch, man!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yes it has Erich...

In all these hypotheticals, the discussion always gets mired into the same swamp; pilot proficiency... No matter how good u are, someone out there is better...

YEP!!

Pilot Proficiency

 

[wmaxt]

I thought the P38 out-handled the Me in low-speed engagements?

Acording to Stienhoff yes, Acording to the 20th FG below 20,000ft, about equal from there to 30,000ft and a little behind from there up.

But Les, Eric, and flyboy said it the best, the planes performance made it possible but its the pilots proficiency that makes the difference.
The P-38L had great acceleration, one of the very best in WWII, and a very fast controllable dive.
It could climb to 20,000ft in 5min WEP and 7 in METO and is still climbing at 1,000ft/min at 35,000ft, METO 17,400lbs.
Roll rate was average until 325mph where it increased while almost all others were decreasing.
All those who flew the P-38 felt it was an exceptionaly acrobatic plane
Speed was 414-416 in METO and as high as 442 in WEP definitely in the hunt.

Thats what the pilot started with easily in the range of all other top fighters of that time, though my research indicates that only ~ 30-45% of the pilots that flew her were able to make use of her true potential against probably 65% of the average single engine fighter of thr era.

wmaxt

 

[Jabberwocky]

2 point to ponder- besides the P-38 pilot being cold the defroster system was so poor it made visibility or lack of a dangerous gambit. Ever drive a car with a crummy heat/defrost system? Yeah it's miserable except no one is sneaking up shooting at you.

The P-38 had no "central armament advantage." The K-4 had a pair of excellent, high velocity 15mms in the upper cowl and either a Mk 103 or 108 30 mm in the prop hub.

I agree with you Erich- these banal fantasy blind dates for aircraft are simply a bunch of spec thrown around. Good pilots make kills not performance specs! Let's sit back and watch, man!

The 15mm cowl MG 151/15 is a MYTH.

Operational 109G/Ks were NEVER, repeat NEVER, fitted with 15mm guns. There simply wasn't enough room. The standard armament after the G-6 was a pair of 13.2mm MG 131 HMGs in the cowling, with a high rate of fire but relatively low muzzle velocity and light shell weight compared to other heavy machine guns. Even then type produced significant bulges in the cowling.

For comparison, the MG 131 weighted 17 kg by itself and around 20-21 kg installed. A MG 151/15 weighted 42 kg by itself and around 48-50 kg installed.

The nose mounted Mk 108 was a bomber destroyer cannon, not really an anti fighter weapon. It had quite a low initial velocity (~505 m/sec) and high trajectory. One hit would almost gaurentee a kill, but it was quite difficult to score hits with it in a manouver fight.

In terms of armament effectiveness against fighters, I'd definately have to give this one to the P-38.

 

[Twitch]

Whatever fantasy guns you desire to put on the 109K please note that they are fuselage mounted so there is NO advantage to the P-38's armament.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Whatever fantasy guns you desire to put on the 109K please note that they are fuselage mounted so there is NO advantage to the P-38's armament.

Nothing 'fantasy' about it.

Getting in front of either fighter was obviously a bad idea, but the advantage still lies witth the P-38 here.

4 M2s firing at 750-850 rpm and 1 20mm firing at 600-700 rpm would be better than 2 Mg 131s firing at 850 rpm and a single Mk 108 at 600 rpm. Higher rate and weight of fire, no prop synchronisation and better ballistics and range.

 

[lesofprimus]

I agree.....

 

[Gnomey]

Getting in front of any fighter is generally a bad idea...

 

[Twitch]

"...the P38's central amament spell the downfall for another German fighter?"

The original poster mentioned the P-38''s "central armament," as an advantage. The 109 has the same "central armament" so there is no advantage. Had nothing to do with how many or whatever guns you want to mount.