P-38 Lightning vs P-51 Mustang: Which was the Better Fighter?

Which was the better fighter? The P-38 Lightning or the P-51 Mustang?

  • Total voters
    295

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


not surplus facts those are human error..
Click to expand...

So I bet that means you probably sh!t yourself every time you get into a REAL airplane....



Yep - too stoopid to be here - bye bye @sshole - shove your joystick up yor @ss!

And since you're so into simulation, here's a gift for you!


BTW nice Avatar!

OK FOLKS, TIME TO GET THIS THREAD BACK ON TRACK!
 
Last edited:
for adults at least we're literate and can use spellcheck.

what exactly are the parameters when comparing these two planes?
 
Njaco said:
for adults at least we're literate and can use spellcheck.
Click to expand...
And English is your native language, unlike others on this forum.

But I'm a little disappointed with the attitude of Johan. You should know better then using an old simulation game as an argument against aeronautical engineers and real pilots. While I agree it's a great game (used to play it, too) I never believed it was anything close to real aircraft flying. In fact I have a few hours (under guidance) on a C172 and it definitely flew different than the one in MSFS for instance.

Anyway, enough on this: Which was the best fighter? For what mission and why compare, they were two different beasts all together.
 
Dear oh dear... bringing shame on the "Pik A's" like that....


....did I tell you about the time I did 200 mph around the streets of Rome in my Viper? Hang on, that was on Grand Turismo...
 
It didn't take long for that one.First comment on the board kinda slammed Al49 alittle on his techniques without researching his builds and methods.I saw this com'in a week ago!Now back to that regular schedule program the 38 or the 51? Cheers
 
just because it dosen't look good dose not mean it was better. the p-38 could take a hit in an engine and still fly on if the prop was feathered.
 
The P-38 was better then the P-51 because of its superior performance in both the PTO and MTO. The P-38 shot down more enemy aircraft then the P-51 in these theatres of war. The P-38 shot down more then 1400 in the MTO and over 1800 in the PTO. The P-38 was rated as the third highest scoring US fighter of WWII behind the P-51 and the F6F. The P-38L with its dive breaks and advanced controls made it a superior fighter to the P-51D. Plus it was a better looking plane. The P-38 flew regular high altitude missions in the MTO and PTO ie more then the P-51. It was very successful as both an air superiority fighter and a ground attack plane. It's overall performance was superior to the Bf109 and FW190 as well as the Oscar and Zero and other Japanese planes such as the Frank and George fighters.
 
scottmsw said:
The P-38 was better then the P-51 because of its superior performance in both the PTO and MTO.
Click to expand...

So those were the only two theatres that counted in the war????

Also when did how an aircraft looks have anything to do with whether it was the better fighter?

Also would you care to elaborate how its performance was superior to the P-51D and Bf 109 as well as the Fw 190. Please discuss at which altitudes and conditions as well.
 

You will find that bold claims by all of us have a tendency to be challenged regarding facts and sources.

You are woefully short of published facts so far..

Care to comment regarding the assignment of the P-51D to be the primary escort to B-29s attacking Japan?

Care to comment regarding why 'dive brake/manuevering flap' was a required mod for the P-38 and how long it took Lockheed to solve the dive problems?

Care to comment on the relative cost between the P-51 and P-38? as well as the relative operational expenses for training and combat?

Care to comment on the decision by the Air Force to retire the P-38 immediately following WWII and retain the P-47 and P-51? Then retain only the P-51?

Care to comment on the relative 'fear factor' the Luftwaffe pilots held for the P-38 versus the P-51?

Care to comment regarding why our Allies bought and flew P-51s but not the P-38?

Having said the above, the P-38 was an excellent fighter and made great contributions across all theatres - but don't mistake lack of earlier presence (of the P-51B/C/D/K) in the MTO/PTO as a choice by the Theatre commanders - simply, beating the Luftwaffe before D-Day was the highest priority for fighter aircraft in the US and there weren't enough P-51B/C/D/K's available to send more to MTO and PTO.

The Mustang was ~ 200 enemy aircraft destroyed below the F6F against arguably much more consistent capability inherent in the LW... and it destroyed far more enemy aircraft on the ground as well as made significant impact to deep rail and barge and road logistics strafing on the way back to England and Italy in the West.

In the ETO the Mustang had the same amount of enemy aircraft destroyed as the P-38 and the P-47 combined - despite the in-theatre presence of both in advance of the Mustang.

Against the Me 109G and Fw 190A the P-38F/G through early J was inferior for a couple of reasons - first, it was less manueverable in almost all altitude ranges to 25,000 feet (it would out climb a 190) and only reached horizontal manuever parity in mid 1944 with introduction of boosted controls. Second, the 109 and 190 could easily escape at high altitude with a quick roll and split S and escape as the P-38 entered compressibility.

The P-38L was the best derivative and probably was a better fighter than the Me 109G and Fw 190A in most situations, but the Fw 190D and Me 109K then have to be considered in the equations and they were formidable against all Allied fighters. But by the time the P-38L reached Europe it was relegated to the fighter bomber role in the ETO although it was very successful in the MTO along with the P-51 in the escort/air supremacy role.

Last and not trivial - it was so big that pilots of both the German fighters could often spot the P-38 and have the benefit of deciding whether to manuever for attack or simply evade.

You will have to explain how the P-38L was a 'far better' or even 'better' fighter than the Ki 84 and 100 or the late model JNAF fighters in altitudes below 25,000 feet. Those were also formidable fighters because of extremely capable manuever performance, even if slower... pilot quality not considered.
 
scottmsw said:
The P-38 shot down more then 1400 in the MTO.
Click to expand...

I suggest you look into the differencebetween "claims" and confirmed kills. Additionally I suggest you investigate the P-38s kill/ loss ratio in the ETO. The P-38 is one of my favoriate aircraft and did offer "a few" advantages over the Mustang, but you're very short of facts my friend.
I suggest starting here..

United States Army Air Forces in World War II
 
Drgondog, I will take a crack at these!

Care to comment regarding the assignment of the P-51D to be the primary escort to B-29s attacking Japan?
I have never read any statements on why the P-51 was used for escorting B-29s and not the P-38. With that said I offer the following response:
The 21st Air Force was commanded by Gen Curtis LeMay, who while with the 8th Air Force saw what the P-51 could do as an escort, so I theorize that he probably preferred the Mustang as an escort for the B-29s. Secondly, if I read my charts correctly from the P-38 and P-51 handbooks, I believe that The P-38 would be at the limit of its range escorting B-29s from Iwo Jima to targets in Japan, especially Tokyo and north. The P-51 would have a greater margin of safety, range wise. (Calculated using 2- 165 gal tanks for P-38 and 2- 110 gallon tanks for P-51, tanks dropped in target area and 5 minutes at war emergency and 15 minutes at military power.) So it may have been range considerations and personal preference that kept the P-38 from escorting the B-29's.
I would appreciate your take on the reasons!

Care to comment regarding why 'dive brake/maneuvering flap' was a required mod for the P-38 and how long it took Lockheed to solve the dive problems?
As you know, the P-38 was designed as a fast climbing high altitude interceptor. The wing used for the design was picked to help the P-38 climb quickly. Unfortunately, that same profile was not optimal if the aircraft traveled at speeds approaching the speed of sound. The P-38 entered the region of compressibility at Mach.67. The P-38 was one of the first if not the first fighter to enter the world of compressibility. Throw in the fact that the Air Corp lost a year's worth of development with the destruction of the one and only prototype (per Brodie) and we see part of the reason for the delay. Once Lockheed figured out the problem, they came up with a fix, the dive flaps. The Air Corp did not want to disrupt P-38 production, so it wasn't until the J-25 that the flaps were standardized. Dive flap kits for field installation were produced but the first batch sent to England was lost when the C-54 transport was shot down by a British fighter (Caiden p162/Brodie p 208). So design considerations (high rate of climb), lack of testing prototype, a new phenomenon, and bad luck combined to delay the introduction of the dive flap.
I would appreciate your take on the reasons!

Care to comment on the relative cost between the P-51 and P-38? as well as the relative operational expenses for training and combat?
No argument here, a twin engine aircraft will cost more to build and maintain then a single engine aircraft. As for training, as O B Taylor former commander of the 14th fighter group stated it took longer for the average pilot to master the P-38 compared to a single engine fighter, but once mastered a P-38 pilot could well be unbeatable. Although there were P-38 pilots in the MTO in 1943 that had NO twin engine pilot experience yet successfully flew the Lightning in combat, (Mullins, page 87) it would appear that training someone to pilot a twin engine plane would take longer and be more expensive then a single. I do not fly. Perhaps you would enlighten me on the relative costs?

Care to comment on the decision by the Air Force to retire the P-38 immediately following WWII and retain the P-47 and P-51? Then retain only the P-51?
See first part of the previous response.

Care to comment on the relative 'fear factor' the Luftwaffe pilots held for the P-38 versus the P-51?

Adolph Galland (104 victories) stated that the P-38 was no match for the German fighters. Heinz Baer (220 victories) thought that the P-38 was a sure kill and easy to out maneuver. However Baer added (after comments about the P-47, P-51, and Spitfire) that "A very good pilot in any of these aircraft was tough to handle and if he had the tactical advantage, he had a good chance to win the fight" (Constable and Toliver page 346-347). On the other hand, Franz Stigler (28 victories) felt that the P-38 could turn inside of a Me-109G, had an amazing climb, and that it was suicidal to fight a P-38 head on. (Christy, page 81). Herbert Kaiser (68 victories) stated "The P-38 Lightning was equal to our Me-109G in performance, far superior in range and was a much more difficult adversary in a dogfight." (Compared to the P-40) (Christy, page 91). Hans Pichler (75 victories) indicated that "the P-38 was more maneuverable and faster than our Bf-109G-6, especially since the latter was equipped with the two cm (20-mm) under wing gondola weapons. I had never been keen on dogfights with the P-38," (Caiden page 103). Johannes Steinhoff (176 victories) when asked what plane was the most difficult to handle with a good pilot behind the controls responded: "The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 [Mustang] was deadly because of the long range, and it could cover any air base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying the jets." (World War II magazine, February 2000) So based on the above, I would say that the P-38 was generally respected and considered a worthy opponent by the Luftwaffe.
Part 1of 2
 
Part 2 of 2

Care to comment regarding why our Allies bought and flew P-51s but not the P-38?

As stated before, a twin engine aircraft is more expensive to operate and maintain than a single engine aircraft.

Having said the above, the P-38 was an excellent fighter and made great contributions across all theatres - but don't mistake lack of earlier presence (of the P-51B/C/D/K) in the MTO/PTO as a choice by the Theatre commanders - simply, beating the Luftwaffe before D-Day was the highest priority for fighter aircraft in the US and there weren't enough P-51B/C/D/K's available to send more to MTO and PTO.

Agreed

The Mustang was ~ 200 enemy aircraft destroyed below the F6F against arguably much more consistent capability inherent in the LW... and it destroyed far more enemy aircraft on the ground as well as made significant impact to deep rail and barge and road logistics strafing on the way back to England and Italy in the West.

Agreed

In the ETO the Mustang had the same amount of enemy aircraft destroyed as the P-38 and the P-47 combined - despite the in-theatre presence of both in advance of the Mustang.

No argument, the numbers speak for themselves. Actually, according to Wagner the P-51 had slightly more air to air and air to ground claims in the ETO/MTO than the P-47 and P-38 combined. This excludes the A-36.
Against the Me 109G and Fw 190A the P-38F/G through early J was inferior for a couple of reasons - first, it was less maneuverable in almost all altitude ranges to 25,000 feet (it would out climb a 190) and only reached horizontal maneuver parity in mid 1944 with introduction of boosted controls. Second, the 109 and 190 could easily escape at high altitude with a quick roll and split S and escape as the P-38 entered compressibility.
I definitely agree that the 109 and 190 could escape the early P-38's with a quick roll and a split S. As for the more maneuverable than a P-38 before mid-1944…
Tests of a FW-190A (Faber's) and a P-38F in August of 1942 showed that at indicated airspeed of 140 the P-38F could out turn the FW. Agreed above that speed the FW was superior (Price page 50). I don't know for sure, but I believe the P-38F did not have the maneuver flap setting as the P-38F's were pre P-38F-15s, the first ones with the maneuver settings. As related above, we have examples of Me-109G pilots who felt that the P-38F's and G's were as maneuverable and/or could turn inside of them. O.B Taylor commanded the 14th Fighter group from Oct 1943 through mid July 1944. He wrote: Generally we found that the 38 could out-maneuver anything, friend or foe, between 18,000 and 31,000 feet (5490-9450 meters). Below 18,000 it was sort of a toss-up except that very near the ground we could run (the Axis) right into the dirt, since he apparently couldn't get quite such a fast pull-out response as we could. From "A History of the 8th Fighter Command" by Lt Col Waldo Heinrichs, Oct 1944, it is stated that pilots who flew the P-38's said that below 18,000 feet the P-38 can catch the "Hun" in a dive, out climb them, out zoom them and out turn them. The P-38 was at least as fast as the German fighters also. However, it also stated that above 18,000 feet, the P-38's could not get above the Germans, and had mechanical difficulties at those altitudes and above. I believe that these statements refer to the J model in the first half of 1944.
Interesting, in the MTO an opinion that the P-38 was more maneuverable 18,000-31000 feet, and in the ETO, just the opposite.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on that one.

The P-38L was the best derivative and probably was a better fighter than the Me 109G and Fw 190A in most situations, but the Fw 190D and Me 109K then have to be considered in the equations and they were formidable against all Allied fighters. But by the time the P-38L reached Europe it was relegated to the fighter bomber role in the ETO although it was very successful in the MTO along with the P-51 in the escort/air supremacy role.

Last and not trivial - it was so big that pilots of both the German fighters could often spot the P-38 and have the benefit of deciding whether to maneuver for attack or simply evade.

I totally agree with you on this point. I believe that the distinctive profile of the P-38 allowed the Germans to engage or evade before the Lightnings had a chance to spot their opponents. To me, this may mean that when the P-38 was engaged, it was usually at a tactical disadvantage. When the P-38 had the tactical advantage, it demonstrated that it could more than hold its own as it did on July 7th 1944 (Caiden page 187) when 2 P-38 Groups accounted for 27 of the 75 aerial victories credited to the 8th Fighter Command that day. (Miller Vol 1 page 103)
You will have to explain how the P-38L was a 'far better' or even 'better' fighter than the Ki 84 and 100 or the late model JNAF fighters in altitudes below 25,000 feet. Those were also formidable fighters because of extremely capable maneuver performance, even if slower... pilot quality not considered.
Agreed, the Ki 84 and Ki 100 were formidable opponents, and could not be taken lightly by a P-38 (or P-51 in my opinion) The P-38 was generally faster than the Ki 84, may have had a slight climb advantage but could not roll or turn with it. (Freeman page 34).

I went through your questions, in a spirit of learning and sharing knowledge. The P-38 was a fine ship, as you said. However the P-51 was also a fine ship, being easier to fly, with a longer range, faster, and with more development potential. I think as much as cost, these last 4 reasons maybe the main reasons that the P-51 was in service longer than the P-38 and P-47.

The sources used in this response include:
Combat Profile, Mustang, by Roger Freeman, 1989
Luftwaffe Combat Planes and Aces, edited by Joe Christy, 1981
The Fork Tailed Devil, by Martin Caiden, 1971
American Combat Plane 3rd Edition, by Ray Wagner, 1982
Focke Wulf 190 at War, Alfred Price, 1977
Luftwaffe Fighter Aces, by Mike Spick, 1996
Horrido! by Trevor Constable and Raymond Toliver, 1968
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, by Warren Bodie, 1991
An Escort of P-38's, by John D Mullins, 1995
P-38 Lightning, by Jeff Ethell, 1983.
Pilot Manual for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning
F-51D Mustang Handbook
Fighter Units and Pilots of the 8th Air Force, Kent Miller 2001

May God fly your wing and protect your six!

Eagledad
 

The 21st Air Force was commanded by Gen Curtis LeMay, who while with the 8th Air Force saw what the P-51 could do as an escort, so I theorize that he probably preferred the Mustang as an escort for the B-29s. Secondly, if I read my charts correctly from the P-38 and P-51 handbooks, I believe that The P-38 would be at the limit of its range escorting B-29s from Iwo Jima to targets in Japan, especially Tokyo and north. The P-51 would have a greater margin of safety, range wise. (Calculated using 2- 165 gal tanks for P-38 and 2- 110 gallon tanks for P-51, tanks dropped in target area and 5 minutes at war emergency and 15 minutes at military power.) So it may have been range considerations and personal preference that kept the P-38 from escorting the B-29's.
I would appreciate your take on the reasons!

I would discount Lemay choosing the 51 because of ETO experiences. He was both an innovator and a results driven pragmatist. Remember that when Iwo Jima was taken, he could have easily brought the P-38 (or the P-47N) there if he believed they would support the mission better than the P-51. If rowboats had served his purpose better he would have put them into action.

Care to comment regarding why 'dive brake/maneuvering flap' was a required mod for the P-38 and how long it took Lockheed to solve the dive problems?

As you know, the P-38 was designed as a fast climbing high altitude interceptor. The wing used for the design was picked to help the P-38 climb quickly. Unfortunately, that same profile was not optimal if the aircraft traveled at speeds approaching the speed of sound. The P-38 entered the region of compressibility at Mach.67. The P-38 was one of the first if not the first fighter to enter the world of compressibility. Throw in the fact that the Air Corp lost a year's worth of development with the destruction of the one and only prototype (per Brodie) and we see part of the reason for the delay. Once Lockheed figured out the problem, they came up with a fix, the dive flaps. The Air Corp did not want to disrupt P-38 production, so it wasn't until the J-25 that the flaps were standardized. Dive flap kits for field installation were produced but the first batch sent to England was lost when the C-54 transport was shot down by a British fighter (Caiden p162/Brodie p 20. So design considerations (high rate of climb), lack of testing prototype, a new phenomenon, and bad luck combined to delay the introduction of the dive flap.
I would appreciate your take on the reasons!

The factors for high rate of climb include the airfoil CLmax, but are more dependent on Power available vs Power Required and the Weight. For best rate of climb, the CL of the wing is far less than the CLmax. For an easy illustration visualize and F-15 climbing straight up - with very low to zero CL required - its all about Thrust to Weight. Net - the pick of the wing airfoil had nothing to do, presumably, with its design role as a fast climbing interceptor.

Totally agreed regarding the factors delaying a traditional test program. Both Lockheed (didn't have the funding to build production tooling in anticipation of a contract) and USAAF desparately needing publicity to get the funding for the P-38.

Compressibility was relative unknown outside academic circles and absolutely unknown regarding stability and control effects of a shock wave... so it took Lockheed a long time to separate observed flutter characteristics from the pitch issue created by transition to shock wave as the P-38 entered Mcrit velocities in a dive. The underwing flap destined for the P-38J-25 solved the issue of delaying the shock wave tuck under (Change in Moment coefficient) issue and also allowed the P-38 to reduce acceleration during the dive so that it could stay with a 109 or 190 without 'locking up'.

The P-38 always turned well because it had a decent Wing Loading and acceleration. Its issues versus the FW 190 and Me 109 were about roll rates to enter the turn, then achieving a higher CLmax to maintain a 3G+ sustained turn. The Fowler flap on the P-38 enabled better low speed turn capability.

The combination of boosted ailerons solved the quick (vs slow) roll into a turn but even then it was no match for an FW 190 (nor was the P-51 or Spit (until the Mk XIV) or even the P-47).

I believe that from the J-25 forward that the P-38 was a superb air to air fighter and comparable or better manueverability to the P-51 at low to medium speeds. Because the P-38 was turbo supercharged it did not have 'sawtooth' performance from the Allisons that the Mustang had with the Merlin two stage supercharger so there were mid range altitudes where the P-38 was as fast or faster and certainly at altitudes above the P-51 high blower critical altitudes it would outclimb and get close in top speeds.

Which then led back to the other points above.

It was (~2x) more expensive and maintain. It was very late in the war to solve critical reliability and performance issues and there were fighters in numbers and capability that were in theatre in the most critical theatre (the ETO) that proved more capable when the capability was required.

The P-38 in both the 9th AF and the 15th AF had as much a ground support role as air to air and in my opinion were a better choice if only one could be chosen... but the P-51 equipped groups in the MTO gradually assumed escort duties because they got the quantities by May 1944 and all the previous P-47 and Spitfire equipped groups converted to Mustangs (rather than standardize on the P-38)

There is no value in engaging dialogue based on anecdotal accounts by different pilots as few of the opinions are based on aircraft to aircraft comparisons with a wide range of tests and objective evaluations. In these cases, whether you believe subjectivity creeps in - you have to respect Rall (deeming the Mustang as the best all around Allied fighter based on his Luftwaffe Fighter School leadership), Brown based on his wide range of tests, USAAF and USN and RAF tests at points in time and even the Fighter Conference at Patuxent River cited in Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand"

Even these are often contradictory but they are the best available.
 
In Jeff Ethall's book the P-38 Lightning, Jeff states that the P-38 was available for service 75% of the time versus 72% of the time for the P-51 in the MTO. The three P-38 groups in the MTO used the Lightning the entire time that the groups were in the MTO. The 82nd Fighter Group had a score of over 500 enemy planes shot down in the MTO. The Lightning Groups in the MTO and ETO did not score many victories after late 1944 because the Luftwaffe was being destroyed by the Allies forces. The MTO and the PTO were just as important as the ETO. The ETO got most of the press compared to the other theatres. Martin Caidan said that the P-38 was in screaming demand from all of the theatres of war including the 9th Air Force except the ETO that was surprized by the excellent showing of the P-38 in its last months of combat with the 8th Air Force.
 

10 to 20% of "confirmed" kills were over claimed depending where and when you're talking and this includes ALL WW2 combatants. Martin Cadin pushed the truth extensively in many of this books including the "Forked Tailed Devil" (a name the Germans NEVER used to describe the P-38 ).

As far as stating the 75% vs 72%, I assume you're talking "mission capable." If so, what are the comparative numbers? At what time frame was that taken or was that a comparative number taken through out the war? Depending on numbers the difference could be only 4 or 5 aircraft.
 

The 479th FG did very well with the P-38J in August and most of September. The 20th and 55th had two good days in July. That about sums up the P-38 'excellent showings' in comparison with the P-51s. Caiden is correct that the P-38 was in high demand - so was the P-47 and P-51. Far more P-51s were built from mid 1943 through the end of the war than P-38s. Your point?
 
In the 8th AF, weren't the P38's held in close to the bombers while the P51's could roam around? That in itself hamstrung the P38 groups since they couldn't go to where the action was. It protected the bombers, but they couldn't break free to run up the scores.
 
Yes - and no Syscom.

Prior to Doolittle's 'go get em' in early January, all escort fighters including the P-38 groups were constrained to close escort with exception of the Group assigned to sweep. The P-38s with the range, were only ones even with the bombers past Koblenz/Munster area (20th and 55th), as they became operational in November, 1943. In January and February they combined with 354th, then 357th to continue to provide escort deep into Germany when all the P-47s turned back.

It was in March that Sweeps became part of the menu and both the 20th and 55th P-38s started incorporation into sweep role along with the Mustangs and the new 364th 'tutored' in escort role during March.

Had the P-38J-25 been available in late 1943 it may have made a difference vis a vis 'switching' when the Mustang came into theatre. But there is a subtle personal influence to Doolittle via Col Tommy Hitchcock (a 10 goal hockey player in peacetime) who was responsible for liason with Brits on the Merlin adaptation and the early in-theatre tests in July timeframe. There is evidence that Doolitle was pre disposed toward the Mustang before he even took over 8th AF based on 'private feedback' from a trusted advisor. - even after Hitchcock was killed in a P-51B doing limit dive tests in late 1943.

As to 'breaking away' much touted by various accounts on the Military and History Channel - there was no such latitude for a Group CO to dispatch the Group on a few German fighters. Tactics evolved from all fighters escorting high and front/back to assigned bomb wings in close escort but only a few were foolish enough to abandon the bombers altogether - it did happen and usually the 4th FG would be mentioned in this context but they also 'adapted'.

The evolving tactics were to dispatch relative force packages (i.e a section of eight wouldoften bounce 20+ German fighters and call for help if they got in trouble, or a flight of four would chase a single). Woe to the Group CO that permitted his squadrons to 'just leave and hunt' and find out that he was suckered and the bomb group being excorted got hammered when the LW 'filled the vacuum'.

It wasn't until April/May timeframe when even the sweep Group (usually one assigned) got 40+ miles out but all the rest were still performing escort. What distinctively changed in January was that fighter flights and sections that intercepted a German force were encouraged to continue and pursue - but those units that did not get in the scrap were chartered to continue the escort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
_PabloSniper_
Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
7K
Thumpalumpacus
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
A
Is Mig 21 Better For Fight
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Zipper730
Menu
Log in
Register