Could the later model P38 establish complete control of air over Germany without P51

Njaco said:

Just as an example....

from the "WWII Data Book" by John Ellis.....

Aircraft production in Units - 1944

USA - 96,318

Germany - 39,807

Thats not taking into account UK and USSR production numbers. USA definately had enough resources to wage a two-front global war.

Click to expand...

actually US did, so what your point?

The point was a counter-point to your assertion that the US didn't have enough resources - at least that is what I get from your earlier post (post #17). If I am mistaken, so be it....

Njaco said:

The point was a counter-point to your assertion that the US didn't have enough resources - at least that is what I get from your earlier post (post #17). If I am mistaken, so be it....

Click to expand...

my point that us can not change P-51 with P-38 in 1:1 ratio w/o other changes in production (less production of others "things" also if less that proportionally to historical difference in price)

Vincenzo said:

my point that us can not change P-51 with P-38 in 1:1 ratio w/o other changes in production (less production of others "things" also if less that proportionally to historical difference in price)

Click to expand...

Actually, in this circumstance I think we can. If the P-38 was deemed to be THE plane for the 8th A.F, there would be no P-51. No Mustangs mean that Packard in the U.S, would be building more Allison V-12's perhaps, rather than the license built Rolls Royce Merlin.

My take on this scenario is I think the P-38J/L would certainly do job. But I'm not so sure if would have been handled as quickly as the Mustang took care of the Luftwaffe in the end. The Lightning would handle the escort part with no sweat. Would be just as good or better when down low, free hunting ground targets. I don't think it would have had as many air to air kills as the Mustang though.

packard can built allison but you need 2 allison for a P-38 (and so more spare engines) the airframe of 38 is larger and so

If no P-51, wouldn't P-38 deployment priority be given to ETO?

Early P-47s had plenty of problems too. Not to mention poor aerial performance.

Development of the P-38 began during 1937 and Lockheed had a prototype flying during January 1939. If the USAAC decide to build the P-38 in large numbers that's when the decision should be made. Which allows plenty of time for design development and construction of production facilities. An aircraft somewhat similiar to the P-38J could be operational before the end of 1942. No need for the P-51 so the Mustang remains only an RAF program. Perhaps the RAF will fit Packard built Merlin engines to a few P-38s as an experiment....

davebender said:

If the USAAC decide to build the P-38 in large numbers that's when the decision should be made. Which allows plenty of time for design development and construction of production facilities

Click to expand...

Actually Lockheed had the facilities available to open another P-38 production line. Remember Lockheed was a subcontractor building B-17s at the Vega facility located at Plant A1. If that contract wasn't awarded to Lockheed and they were dedicated to increased P-38 production, the space was available.

Lockheed's Burbank Plants

I think late model P-38's could have done the job. I've read that the Lightning was hard to mass produce, could be we wouldn't have been able to produce too many more than we did.

muscogeemike said:

I think late model P-38's could have done the job. I've read that the Lightning was hard to mass produce, could be we wouldn't have been able to produce too many more than we did.

Click to expand...

By opening up a second or third propduction source, it "could have" been done if the AAF wanted it too happen.

Vincenzo said:

my point that us can not change P-51 with P-38 in 1:1 ratio w/o other changes in production (less production of others "things" also if less that proportionally to historical difference in price)

Click to expand...

I agree with this as a general idea. It's not reasonable to just assume an a/c requiring more resources can be built in the same numbers and nothing else would change. The US still had unused resources (for example consumer spending in the US in WWII was only a little below 50% of the economy, v around 70% now, but it's low 30's-~40% in the Chinese economy now in peacetime, depending whose figures you accept; the lower range of Chinese figures is official, but some think it's subject to significant undercounting). But in actual history the US only brought to bear a certain amount of resources, and not as a result of a conscious decision 'this is a pretty easy war, so let's relax and not throw our full resources at it'. There were various political, bureaucratic, cultural etc limits on how much the country could mobilize. Of course Germany was worse than the US at marshalling its limited resources even in face of a much more dire threat once the war in Russia was not an immediate success. the German economy wasn't on a real war footing until 1944, when it was way too late.

However, the extra resources required to fully equip 8th and 15th AF's with P-38's rather than P-51's wasn't that large an amount in the whole US effort. The USAAF always had plenty of extra less desireable a/c in depots or prematurely discarded, or even still on the production lines. For example the P-40N only finished production in November 1944. While the US couldn't just do *anything* with 'unlimited resources' it might have done a more efficient job phasing out the production of obsolescent fighter types sooner, or keeping them in frontline units longer (in the tactical AF's in ETO/MTO or defensively positioned AF's in the PTO and ZI). Tied to that, it might have sent fewer fighters to Allies under Lend Lease, which is where a lot of later P-39/40/63 production went. And, the USAAF had massive numerical superiority in certain theaters which it could have reduced (eg. 9th and 12th AF fighter units v German fighter units committed to France and Italy) to build up numbers more in 8th and 15th. Likewise the availability of P-38's in the Pacific was often an important factor in planning offensive operations not supported by carriers, because of the 38's range. But such operations could have been slowed down to send more P-38's to Europe, if absolutely necessary.

Joe

My perspective is similar to Joe's. The USAAF high command could have re-allocated P-38 units globally to compliment P-47s - which was original plan until the 'potential' of the newly arriving P-51B displaced the concept of building with more P-38 units. The 474th and 479th, ETO bound, were in training in the States and the 364th arrived in january, 1944.

Arnold could have decided to strip two P-38FG, say 1st and 14th or 82nd and sent them from MTO to 8th AF. Would have hurt the 15th, but the 8th was the key to ETO in early to mid 1944.

The P-38 was easy to spot but still very dangerous to 109 and 190 and even with 1:1 would have tangibly reduced 8th BC losses.

JoeB good reply,
i want just add, if it's true that "the extra resources required to fully equip 8th and 15th AF's with P-38's rather than P-51's wasn't that large an amount in the whole US effort", it's also true you for built the P-38s you need specific resources and on this probable the amount is not negligible

wuzak said:

What's next?

Could the later model Spitfire get extended range and establish complete control of air over Germany without P51?

Click to expand...

Yes, on both accounts (for the suggestion of the new thread and as the answer for the question it would rise

GregP said:

The early P-38's suffered from intake manifold issues and running on European gasoline, which had a LOT more aromatic percentage than American gasloine. American gas ahd 4% aromatics and Europeam fules had up to 40% aormatics. So ... our engines detionated a bit relative to European engines. When we figured that out amd fixed the intake manifold issues, the Allison were cured. European engines also had a hard time running American fuels, read the fighter conference proceedings and see.

By the time they FIXED the P-38's, the P-51 was there and there was NO point in maintaining two logistical chains into Europe.

So, we transferrred the P-38's into the PTO and flew them against the Japanese. Our two higherst-scoring Aces flew P-38's.

The issues were fixed about when elected to move them from the ETO to the PTO. We could just as easily have moved the P-51's into the PTO, but didn't in large numbers.

The P-38 could easily have done the job. By the end of the war, it was the fastest-rolling figher in any theater with hydraulic aileron assist, turned pretty well, too, had devasting armament and a very fast rate of climb.

Click to expand...

USAAF have had more issues to fix, in order to make P-38 function well - re-teaching the pilots to cruise on high manifold pressure and low RPM. The better intercoolers of the P-38J were 'too efficient', compared with earlier installation, and, flying at 28000 ft on low MAP cooled the charge too much, leading to engine problems malfunctions. Another issue was poor cabin heater (blame laying to Lockheed here), fine for ops at 15000, but severely lacking in ETO winter, 25-30000 ft.

MikeGazdik said:

Actually, in this circumstance I think we can. If the P-38 was deemed to be THE plane for the 8th A.F, there would be no P-51. No Mustangs mean that Packard in the U.S, would be building more Allison V-12's perhaps, rather than the license built Rolls Royce Merlin.

Click to expand...

Except that Packard's licence production of the Merlin was done for the British, not the USAAF. Contracts were in place for the engine supply, so switching to Allison production would not have been simple.

However, without the P-51 it may be that Don Berlin's wish to have a 60-series Merlin in a P-40 comes to fruition, and more Merlin P-40s are built, freeing up V-1710s for the P-38. Similarly, the P-39 and P-63 may also be fitted with Merlins.

tomo pauk said:

Yes, on both accounts (for the suggestion of the new thread and as the answer for the question it would rise

Click to expand...

I have little doubt that a Spitfire VIII, IX or XIV, in sufficient quantities, with the range to escort to Berlin and beyond would establish complete control of teh skies over Europe. The question is could teh Spitfire be provided the range?

The PR.XIX had a range of around 2000 miles, but no guns. The XIX is basically the same airframe and engine as the XIV, so on the surface it would appear possible.

So was the P-47. That's why these fighter aircraft cost so much. But the USA can afford them as we weren't supporting 200+ army divisions in continuous combat from 1941 onward.

DOUBLE POST

Wuzak, A Merlin engined P-39 sounds wonderful!! And thanks for saving my thought!!

After reading this more, others have touched on a concern I had and that is the need of the Lightning in the Pacific theatre. The 15th AF could have utilized other aircraft easier, but the long legs of the P-38 were a must in the Pacific. What aircraft would have been on the Yamamoto mission if the P-38's weren't available? That mission was long before the longer ranging P-47's, and I believe before the F4U was engaged in battle and likely outside its range.

MikeGazdik said:

Wuzak, A Merlin engined P-39 sounds wonderful!! And thanks for saving my thought!!

Click to expand...

Which would it be?

The two stage engines would likely be too long, so perhaps a 45/50 or maybe a 20-series?

A Merlin 60-series was under consideration for a version of the P-63, but since the USAAF needed all its Packard allocation for P-51s the project was shelved.