Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I am thinking, a long range bombing mission required four sometimes more waves of escorts for input and withdrawal. In the early days the fist and last legs were done by Spitfires, then P-47s and frequently a mix of all 4 types. I am not an expert on the subject, I have just been reading posts by people who are, so I suggest you cool your heels.Long Range Bombing Missions. Please think before you post.
Thats a brave request considering the contents of your last few posts...Long Range Bombing Missions. Please think before you post.
Incidentally, I just found this nice set of stats 15mins ago. Just rattled then into EXCEL so they show up better.
Genuinely shocked at a couple of them. Very surprised how cheap a P-51 is, and also although I knew the
P-47 was expensive, its nearly twice a P-51 in cost. P-38 pretty expensive, although on a "per engine"
basis its probably not too bad. (Bombers I just left in because its a nice reference, although a bit off topic
for this thread I suppose).
View attachment 636185
(Source = page 136 of this)
View attachment 636186
I dont know !Do the costs shown include Government Furnished Equipment? (Engines, turbosuperchargers, radio and radar equipment)
It seems it generally includes GFE. Mod centers may install equipment specific to an operator at a designated location. The last paragraph basically says (to my understanding) the prices shown have included cost reductions for future deliveries (probably based on quantities ordered)I dont know !
Let me have a look.... I hope it tells us somewhere.... *5mins elapses*
Umm ok this is what it says, I hope you understand it, as I`m not sure I do...
View attachment 636188
Ok, so I`ve done a more complete graph, instead of averaging it, this shows how the cost varied as time went on. P-38 has a pretty decent downward cost progression (which is I suppose exactly what you`d expect), but conversly, the P-63 got MORE expensive as time went on, and the P-51 is pretty much flat.It seems it generally includes GFE. Mod centers may install equipment specific to an operator at a designated location. The last paragraph basically says (to my understanding) the prices shown have included cost reductions for future deliveries (probably based on quantities ordered)
Hmm well I know what you mean, but I dont think they key factor here is where the money comes from (I`m inferring that`s what you were meaning ?), but that the cost naturally represents resources, materials, labour, factory space, time, engines, and so on.When a B-24 costs around 8 times what a fighter costs and there were 18,000+ made, its pretty clear the cost of a fighter didn't weigh much on anyone's minds.
I'm not disagreeing with you but even with the continuous development it didn't do anything in theater aircraft weren't already doing with less problems such as pilot training maintenance etc. The other thing is the P38 is a big target,Not necessarily true - the P-38's issues were continually addressed and improved. Later model P-38Js and Ls were great performers and in some areas out performed both the P-51 and P-47. It was more expensive to operate and required more pilot training but remained the premier AAF fighter in the PTO until the the Mustang started to arrive in numbers later in the war.
There are many ways to look at costs. After the raids on Schweinfurt and others without escort the calculations were finally changed. Without the fighter escorts you cant carry out a bombing offensive without crippling losses of planes and crews that cost much more.Hmm well I know what you mean, but I dont think they key factor here is where the money comes from (I`m inferring that`s what you were meaning ?), but that the cost naturally represents resources, materials, labour, factory space, time, engines, and so on.
I think if you added up all the resources for fighters it would not be that different to the heavy bombers, of which only two types were really made in volume. So I still think
the factors behind that "cost" would have been very important. It probably also gives you a pretty solid metric on relative manufacturing time as well - which I`m sure
more or less tells you how many you can make in a certain time period.
I remember a post on here somewhere where a P38 pilot did that in a mock dogfight with a Spitfire and almost flew into the ground.I remember watching a show on the Military History Channel (I don't remember which one) where a P-38 pilot (I don't remember who) was diving with a FW-190 on his tail; when his altitude got low enough to force him to level off, he used differential thrust and crossed controls to put the airplane into a skid; as the FW-190 shot past him, he straightened his plane out, applied full throttle and shot the FW-190 down. I remember wondering if he had practiced that maneuver, came up with it on the spot, or maybe had time to think of it during the dive? Any way you look at it, it was a helluva piece of flying.
Now, considering Germany was "on it's last legs" in 1943, the numbers for 1944 (regardless when production "fell off") still showed a higher production number than the year prior.
The Luftwaffe was defeated between September 1943 when the P-38 was flying the large majority of long range escort missions and March of 1944.
The Luftwaffe was defeated between September 1943 when the P-38 was flying the large majority of long range escort missions and March of 1944.
Maybe in the ETO but not in the Pacific where it was the preferred AAF until the P-51 arrived. Being a bit target didn't matter in the PTOI'm not disagreeing with you but even with the continuous development it didn't do anything in theater aircraft weren't already doing with less problems such as pilot training maintenance etc. The other thing is the P38 is a big target, View attachment 636243
The chart and percentage of loss means a great deal. The difference of 7 vs 3% loss rate saved the daylight bombing campaign. Do the math, you had virtually no chance of flying 25 missions and surviving with 7% losses. Moral was in the toilet because the bomber crews could do the math.
Something I read recently, you cant do deep penetration raids all year round, there isnt enough daylight in the depths of winter or darkness at the height of summer. (just an aside)In escorted raids deep into Germany early in 1944 the number of bombers lost per mission were very similar to those on the unescorted (well, only partially escorted) Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission and second Schweinfurt raid - around 60-80. The difference was that in 1943 there were ~300 - 350 bombers on those missions, in 1944 there were as much as 1,000, sometimes more.
Also note that after the second Schweinfurt raid the bomber strength took time to replenish, and when they were at full strength the weather often proved a very big obstacle, meaning that the 8th AF didn't fly as many missions in the second half of 1943 as they might otherwise.