Can some of the explanation for the P-38's greater success in the Pacific be attributed to poorer Japanese pilots?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Right. Now that I understand how (relatively) late the really improved P-38 models arrived in Theater the whole thing makes more sense.

Getting back to the OP, I'd say (again) that the reason the P-38 did so much better in the Pacific was that the specific strengths of the aircraft were more of an advantage relative to Japanese aircraft, especially in 1942-43. And because the enhanced range and the redundancy of a second engine were so beneficial in the long haul flights in the Pacific. This wasn't quite as urgent in the MTO though of course it was also a big deal in NW Europe with the Strategic bombing campaign.
 
The way I see it is this - in 1942 or 43 in the Pacific, even the the P-38F can outrun the best available Japanese fighters in almost all circumstances. With a little bit of distance in particular a P-38 pilot can execute a high speed climb that the A6M or Ki-43 can't follow, nor can any other Japanese fighter I can think of except maybe a (fairly rare) Ki-44. So this means he has a pretty good chance to disengage when he needs to. Conversely, a Japanese fighter pilot really has no way to disengage from a P-38. Japanese bomber pilots are in an even worse situation. In the Pacific, once at higher altitude (say 20,000 ft), the P-38 pilot can enjoy relative safety from attack, so long as he keeps his eyes open. He can engage or disengage more or less at will. This is a huge advantage.

None of this is true in the MTO. The P-38F or G can't be sure to outrun a Bf 109 or Macchi 202/205 or Fw 190. It would depend on the specific models of both aircraft. Nor can he own the high altitude domain, to the contrary. The Bf 109 and MC 202 both climb very well and can do so at pretty high speed, and both have very good high altitude performance. Due to the problems with diving the early model P-38s there isn't really a reliable escape maneuver P-38 pilots can use there. The only real advantage the P-38 has in this Theater is range, and (against some but not all Axis types) firepower.

On top of all this, Japanese aircraft also struggled with radios, and didn't even always have them, whereas German radios were pretty effective and ubiquitous. I am not sure about the Italian.
 
I would also say that P-38 pilots were starting to have success in the Pacific well before the quality of Japanese pilots had seriously declined. At the outset, IMO, the Japanese pilots were as good as the Germans, Americans, British or anyone else, if not better. And while pilot quality declined by the later war for all the Axis nations, this did not end overnight.
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
None of this is true in the MTO. The P-38F or G can't be sure to outrun a Bf 109 or Macchi 202/205 or Fw 190. It would depend on the specific models of both aircraft.
Click to expand...
The P-38 F/G were just as fast as the 109F and the 202, the 205 was able to hit about 400 mph. When you say "out run" do mean to break off the engagement and run, accelerate, or just in terms of level speed, out pace because this would vary with altitude.
That isn't necessarily true. Yes - the P-38 had the issue with compressibility when approaching critical Mach number, but that mainly encountered at higher altitudes and the aircraft was able to be flown out of the condition when it hit denser air at lower altitude. It did no doubt kill pilots both in combat and in training. I knew a P-38 pilot who was stationed at Muroc and he told me he knew at least one guy who wanted to try to see if he could get into compressibility and then recover quickly. That guy didn't make to to dinner that night. Stan Sparks, an early P-38 ace was killed playing around with this demon as well.

Now There were many pilots who were aware of the condition but never had issues, I think Thomas Lanphier mentioned this in one of his interviews. Of course all this was somewhat resolved when the P-38 was fitted with dive recovery flaps, in the field and on later models. The dive flaps delayed onset compressibility by shifting the Center of Pressure aft and delayed Mach tuck.

Lastly - you continue to omit pilot skill and tactics. Although the Italians had some good pilots and equipment (but not enough of them), they had a doctrine of wanting to traditionally dogfight which IMO took away some of the stronger points of their aircraft. I believe Canadian ace George Beurling mentioned this is some of his letters home.
 
Attrition was so bad, the 78th FG, which arrived in England with P-38s, had to transfer all their planes and most of their pilots to the MTO to shore up the three P-38 groups there. The 82nd, upon arrival in North Africa, had half their planes and pilots stripped to back fill the 1st and 14th FGs.
 

My point is simply that most P-38 pilots, even for early model F or G, could engage or disengage from Japanese fighters at will most of the time. So this made it very good in the Pacific.

In the MTO, they may have been able to disengage sometimes, but by and large they couldn't really expect that they could do so. They also couldn't 'own' the high altitude realm the same way. And I think this partly explains the difference in outcomes between the two Theaters.

As for tactics - the Italians apparently had a rather strange set of tactics including rather wild evasive maneuvers, which was commented on by German, British, and US pilots, but they do not seem to have suffered massive losses against British or American pilots, at least not while flying their more modern types (MC 202 or later). And conversely they did sometimes impose crippling losses on Allied air units. For the Italians it was more a matter of steady attrition and mounting logistical problems. Plus, as with the Germans, US heavy and medium bombers blasting their airfields and destroying many of their aircraft on the ground.

One thing I would say in favor of the P-38 though, is that prior to the arrival of the P-38 and the Spitfire Mk IX in the MTO, German and Italian pilots could cruise around in relatively safety at ~ 25,000 ft; and so long as they had enough E, they could disengage from combat by climbing. Just like P-38 pilots did in the Pacific. Neither the tropicalized Spit V nor the P-40F/L could really contend with them above about 22-24,000 ft.

The P-38 may not have had a huge advantage over the 109F/G or MC 202, but P-38 pilots could challenge the Axis pilots at higher altitudes and take away that safe zone from them. P-38s were in Theater by late 1942, so it was the first Allied plane to kind of close this door for the Axis pilots. IIRC I think the first Spitfire MK IX were arriving in 1943.
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
My point is simply that most P-38 pilots, even for early model F or G, could engage or disengage from Japanese fighters at will most of the time. So this made it very good in the Pacific.
Click to expand...
Agree
Many of the P-38 drivers in the MTO were not as experienced as the early P-38s pilots in the SWP, especially 5th AF pilots
Agree
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Agree

Many of the P-38 drivers in the MTO were not as experienced as the early P-38s pilots in the SWP, especially 5th AF pilots
Click to expand...

That's a good point. The OTU units in the Pacific were probably a huge help with the transition. The situation in North Africa was arguably a bit more dire when they were first sending US aircraft in there in 1942 and they were thrown into the breach very quickly. Some of the P-38 units seem to have not had enough training prior to combat, time to gain familiarity with the Axis types etc. US P-40 pilots by contrast had the benefit of being able to fly with RAF P-40 units and learn the ropes (and what tactics worked and didn't work) prior to going out on their own.

IMO P-38 was such an advanced design it was almost science fiction in 1942 and they had to figure out a lot of things (including just flying a twin engined fighter in combat and dealing with that compressability problem) on the fly, hit the ground running. Immense challenge.
 
Agree - but in the AAF there no such thing as an OTU
 
I have been looking at some of the MC 202 performance figures (climb) and some of the ones published in the past are close to "Ludicrous speed"
Wiki doesn't seem to be too bad bit Green's old book on fighters?
Attitude.......................time..........................ft/min average total height/time x 60(me)
3,280ft...........................39 sec........................5046
6,560ft........................1 min 28 sec...............4472
13,120........................3 min 32 sec................3713
19,685........................5 min 55sec................3327

note that the last 6560 ft of climb averaged 2754 ft minute. which is at least somewhat believable (?).
How this plane did 5000fpm in the 1st minute I have no idea (was doing 309mph at sea level and pulled back on the stick?)

Now in an old "Aircraft in Profile" book (remember them?) there is chapter/short section on the MC 202 (10 pages) that offers some differences.

It gives performance numbers from 3 sources
The prototype trials.
The official acceptance trials of M.M. 9486 (says typical)
The Official specification from technical manual C.A. 670/1

The last explains a a lot when it comes to internet figures or William Green's numbers as that is what (plus a few more) the "official" specification says.
Prototype numbers????
the acceptance trials of a production aircraft are bit lower

Atitude..........................speed.......................time to climb
sea level.......................308mph.....................''''''''........
3,280.............................320mph....................52 sec (13 seconds longer)
6,560.............................332mph....................1 min 48 sec
9,840.............................343mph.....................2 min 47 sec
13,120...........................354mph....................3 min 49 sec
16,405...........................363mph....................4 min 57 sec
19,685...........................367mph....................6 min 26 sec

Service ceiling 34,600ft ( 3,140ft below "official")
range with 551lbs of fuel 475 miles at 20,130ft at 267 mph (430kph?)
Max dive speed (staring from 20.130ft) 475mph at 8,330ft.

The official speed numbers higher by 1mph at sea level and up to 10 mph at 13,120 and then get closer at higher altitudes.
Ultimate loading coefficient (bad translation?) was 15.8 which is extraordinary strong.

Engine was rated at 1075hp for take off at 2500rpm.

I have no idea if somebody mis-translate zoom climb or something else.
 

I found the P-38 numbers equally confusing - with reported climb rates ranging from around 2,000 fpm to 4,500 fpm for the same variant. I assume one is heavily loaded, one is optimal, or one is using low boost or something.

My understanding is MC 202 had performance similar to a BF 109F2, with pretty much the same (or slightly inferior) engine, and about the same size and weight. But it had a reputation as a particularly fast climbing aircraft.

Depending on which version the Alfa Romeo RA 1000 RC.41 (license built DB 601) could be rated as high as 1,159 hp

This was the most detailed article i could find on it, but it's in Italian


here's an auto-translation into English https://www-militarystory-org.trans..._sl=it&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

My understanding is that the quality of these Italian license built DB 601s was good but the rate of production was very inadequate.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Agree - but in the AAF there no such thing as an OTU
Click to expand...
In the 5TH AF, one squadron from the 8th FG, 49th FG, and 35th FG transitioned to P-38s in late '42 - early '43. Pilots had previous combat experience in P-39s (8th and 35th) or P-40s (49th). They also culled the other squadrons of some of their best pilots. 475th FG was stood up in much the same way, culling experienced pilots from other groups.
OTUs were used Stateside when standing up new units.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
13K
Thumpalumpacus
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
13K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register