Effectiveness of the P-38

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

The P-38 can dive as well as it needs to. Just throttle back as you nose over, then hose the crap outa them and pull up! 440 Knots was the safety limit imposed by HQ, but the plane could safely go to 460 Knots! Thats 506 MPH to 529 MPH Given the extremely long effective range of the plane's guns, it should never be a problem!
The planes main strength lies with it's speed and long range, easy to aim guns, which give the enemy less time to see it coming and start his evasive maneuvers before the bullets start landing in his cockpit! The target has to dive for more than a few seconds after seeing the P-38 behind just to get to the speed of the P-38 before he starts shooting, but the long range and easy to aim effects mean that few planes could escape the first pass! Watch some P-38 Gun Camera Films!
 
I've seen the pictures of the P-47s in the remark and both had more than 20 cannon hits on them, one had over 220 holes on one side! I don't think the lack of cannon ammo had anything to do with it???
 
Again, my point was never about roll rate. It was about roll acceleration. The Bf-109 has a quite unremarkable roll rate and the P-38 will definitely produce a higher roll rate at higher speeds, especially with the boosted ailerons. But my point was about the initial response: And while a high speed train will eventually reach a higher top speed than the go-cart, the go-cart will beat you to the end of the field.

Here is a pilot quote from Dean's American 100 thousand on page 160: "It was disconcerting to have a fighter barreling in on you, crank the wheel hard over, and just have the P-38 sit there. Then, after it slowly rolled the first five or ten degrees of bank it would turn quickly, but the hesitation was sweat-producing".
 
Yes, the speed and the concentrated armament is undoubtedly a superb asset in the P-38. And this makes it a very good interceptor and also suited to the so-called boom and zoom attack as in dive down, shoot, and then zoom right back up again. So Hartmann would probably have loved it: Dive down and hammer La's and Yak's with a concentrated mix of 20 mm and 50-cal and the zoom on up again. If he got 352 with the Bf-109, then he probably would have topped 400 in the P-38!

But is it suited to mix it up with singles in a dogfight? I highly doubt it just for the reasons you mentioned: Granted, the boosted ailerons gives a high roll rate eventually, but the high moment of inertia around the roll axis hampers roll acceleration and the kind of fine tuning needed to keep a jinking adversary in the crosshairs.
 
Holtzauge said:
So Hartmann would probably have loved it: Dive down and hammer La's and Yak's with a concentrated mix of 20 mm and 50-cal and the zoom on up again. If he got 352 with the Bf-109, then he probably would have topped 400 in the P-38!
Click to expand...
Why not 1,000? Who the hell limited the "blond knight of Germany" in ammunition?!
In the air combat on November 7, 1944 over Niš (Serbia) P-38s in a dogfight at low altitude shot down a pair of Yak-3s (possibly Yak-9s, there are different interpretations of the event) while losing two of their planes. There was no "beating" of "Lightnings", the fight was rather equal.
There are memoirs of a Luftwaffe ace (unfortunately, I can't remember the name) who claimed to conduct one of his most difficult air combat against a Lightning. I'll try to find the quote.
In addition: the ace's name was Peter Henn.
Henn, P. The Last Battle: The Memoirs of a German Fighter Ace. — London: William Kimber, 1954
 
Last edited:
PAT303 said:
Do you think a P38 limping back from Berlin would make it?, I wouldn't put money on it.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't either, but it was possible even if not probable. The other point is that the single engine planes even at 20,000ft are not going to go far. How far can they glide?
P-38 might get the Pilot 30-100 miles back across the Channel vs being a POW.
J's had a number of modifications.

Everything is context. In 1942 what did the Americans have?
First G came off the line in June of 1942. In operation Torch do you want P-38Gs (or even Fs) or P-40Ks? Or P-39K/Ls ? There were no other choices (A-36s?)
Let's remember that the P-47s needed a number of modifications to get really effective, The drop tanks get the most attention but P-47s in the 2nd 1/2 of 1943 got new props, many installed at the fighter fields and got water injection kits. In Early 1943 P-47s got British radios because the American ones didn't work.
 

Well whatever the outcome of that battle, does it really tell us much about how good or bad any of the aircraft involved were if we don't know how the pilots involved used their aircraft? Did the P-38s do slashing attacks or did they get into slow speed turning "knife" fights with the Yaks?
 
_We_ know. 866 IAP, 2 Yak-3 + 8 Yak-9; capts.: Koldunov, Bondar', sen.lts.: Surnev, Zheleznov, Potsiba; lts.: Krasyukov, Zhestovsky, Krivonogih, jr.lts. Serdyuk, Shipulya. Shot down: Shipulya. Zhestovsky, Krivonogih (AAA, friendly fire).
Four P-38s were engaged in attacking ground targets (a Soviet convoy) while eight Lightnings covered them at an altitude of 1,500 meters. Soviet pilots claimed five shot down; American reports said two P-38s were lost. The overclaim rate is relatively low. According to Soviet reports, the Yak-9s were inferior to the P-38s in _horizontal_ maneuvering, but superior in vertical maneuvering.
 

Why were P-38s attacking Soviet convoys?
 
Frank Stewart said:
I've seen the pictures of the P-47s in the remark and both had more than 20 cannon hits on them, one had over 220 holes on one side! I don't think the lack of cannon ammo had anything to do with it???
Click to expand...
Cannon hits caused the initial damage, in Johnsons case the FW190 that then attacked him hosed him from close range but it only had ammunition for it's two 8mm MG's left.
 
Again, Holtzauge, it was the mount of our two top aces and 3 of the top 10.

Methinks you overstate the issue.
 
Last edited:
wuzak said:
Why were P-38s attacking Soviet convoys?
Click to expand...

The Soviets had requested air support by the P-38's. But the German and Soviet convoys were very close together and neither side was shy about using each other's captured equipment. And there was no radio comm between the P-38's and the Soviets. This produced my all time favorite Yak combat action artwork.

 
pinehilljoe said:
In the hands of a good pilot the P-38 was deadly effective.
Click to expand...
To quote Capt Brown about a boosted aileron P-38L: "It rolled like a dingbat."

However, that boost made the ailerons so sensitive that it had to be turned off for takeoff and landing. When some 49 FG P-38 pilots picked up some new P-38L in the PI, no one had told them about the aileron boost. They got off the ground Okay but on the way home figured that trying to land was going to be a bear or possibly even a Bigfoot. One pilot even said he was going to point it over the big lake near their airfield and bail out. Then one guy said he had just noticed a sign that said "Aileron Boost" and when he turned the valve the other way, handling went back to normal. Note that the P-38 was unusual in that you had to manually turn on the hydraulic pump before operating the landing gear, a forgotten fact that scared the bejesus out of an experienced combat pilot named Jimmy Stuart.
 
C'mon guys: If we are now to go with the number of aces who flew them as criteria of which was the better fighter, this means that the Bf-109 was the best of them all right? Which of course it wasn't: Many say it reached zenith with the F-model and from then on it began the downhill slide into obsolescence. And that's not just me saying that: That was Adolph Galland himself who after the war in a debriefing in Britain said that the 109 should have been phased out already in 1943 in favor of the Fw-190D and Ta-152 models. Yet the top aces flew Bf-109's and did well right up until the end of the war.

A good carpenter will not blame his tool and I said in an earlier post that the P-38 checks a lot of boxes. In fact it checks many of the most important ones: Speed, climb rate, ceiling, range, etc. So again, a good interceptor yes, but I still maintain that in a furball type dogfight, where being able to quickly change direction by rolling, then roll ACCELERATION is important (boosted ailerons help mainly with roll RATE) and with two fat engines and booms sitting far out from the centerline and wing fuel not only inboard, but even outside the engines in the wings then I'd rather sit in a single-engined fighter thank you very much!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
629
Ivan1GFP
I
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
11K
EwenS
E
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
wrathofatlantis
W
S
Comparison of the Gloster F.5/34 and the Mitsubishi A6M2.
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
5K
z42
Z
Menu
Log in
Register