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

[eagledad]

Hello all

While Dragondog is correct about the the placard speed limits of the P-38 not changing, the flight manual did say that the pilot was not to exceed the placard limits by more than 20 mph with dive recovery flaps extended. I read this to mean that a P-38 pilot with the aircraft's dive flaps extended could reach 440 IAS at 10,000 feet, vs 420 IAS at the same altitude without flaps deployed. However, that is still 40 mph slower than what was allowed for a P-51 at that altitude.

Eagledad.

 

[yeti]

P51

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

P51

And why??????

 

[BLine22]

P-38 is much more versatile. Mustang is a poor ground attack aircraft as demonstrated in Korea.

 

[BLine22]

Ah, no it was the 9th AF that carried out most of the A2G in the ETO utilizing the P-47. P-38 was and excellent strafer owing to its concentrated armament and could carry twice the bomb load of Mustang. F-51's were withdrawn from Korea due to the susceptibility of the cooling system to ground fire.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Droopsnoot was a pathfinder for a larger bombing force...it wasn't supposed to be anything else.

The RAF used Mossies in the same capacity.

 

[BLine22]

Down in the weeds : close air support in Korea

or
The P-51 Mustang Made a Korean War Comeback — War Is Boring


F-51s were withdrawn from USAF ops in Jan 53, aircraft were transferred to ROKAF.

 

[GrauGeist]

On the contrary, the pathfinders did an excellent job and they made a wide range of modified types on the P-38 airframe.

The P-38 itself was a good fighter and accounted for a great deal of Axis aircraft. It was extremely successful in the MTO, too.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-38 is not, not was it ever, a medium bomber.

The P-38 was being phased out for the P-51D for several reasons and not because the P-38 was a "poor performer" but because the P-51D had matured to the point where the P-38's role was surpassed.

The P-38 was a maintenance nightmare, expensive to operate.

Also, the RAF rejected the Lightning I because it didn't have superchargers at the time, making it unsuitable for their higher altitude needs.

 

[GrauGeist]

The RAF didn't take any later types necause they had managed to get out of their need for as many warplanes as they could get during the early stages of the war. The RAF and FAA were caught up short and played catch-up and by the time the P-38's bugs were worked out, they had their own top performers rolling off the line.

And the P-38's bombing missions were effective from several standpoints:
They hit their targets hard and fast
They had good target accuracy and saturation
They could fight their way out of a bounce

 

[GrauGeist]

The RAF accepted Mustangs & Thunderbolts, (for sole use against the lesser forces of Nippon) & the FAA wanted F4U/F6Fs.
The RAF didn't want P-38s, period.

The droop snoot P-38s were useless as fighters, & not much better as bombers..
Proper medium bombers were preferred, & rightly, on the basis of results.

The RAF used the Mustang in the ETO and saw it's first combat in May 1942. Later in '42, they escorted Wellingtons on a raid into Germany.

Regarding the droopsnoots, they weren't intended to be fighters, they were pathfinders and used for occasional spot recon.

Also saying the P-38 wasn't a good bomber is also saying the P-51 or P-47 weren't either, as they performed the same bombing missions. Virtually all fighters during WWII were pressed into a bombing role at one point or another...not sure why you're singling out the P-38 and condemning it for the exact same mission profile all the other fighters (on both sides of the fence) performed.

 

[GrauGeist]

You seem to be fixated on "medium bomber" for some reason.

The P-47 performed bombing missions, the P-51 performed bombing missions, the Tempest, the Spitfire, the Fw190, the Bf109 and on and on and on.

The droop snoot was not a bomber...it was a pathfinder...it led a force of bomb equipped P-38's to the target and they executed pinpoint strikes. The Mosquito was employed in the same manner, too.

When the modified P-38 wasn't leading a bombing mission, it was used on occasion for a fast recon role.

Then there were the high-speed unarmed P-38s, called the "F-5", used solely for high-speed photo recon. Much like the PRU Mosquitoes or Spitfires.

And by the way, your reference to a "B-38" doesn't apply to the P-38 in any form - the B-38 was was allocated to the Allison V-1710 equipped B-17.

 

[GrauGeist]

& what 'mission profile' did the droop snoot bombers lead?
It was a 'medium bomber' role, wasn't it..

No, it was a fighter-bomber role, which the P-38 was very well adapted to with it's inner and outer hard-points.

Were they much good at it, in terms of bombing results? No.

What are your sources, or are you going on sentiment?

 

[GrauGeist]

You do know that when you edit a post to change your position, it shows up, right?

I asked you directly to show me your source to back up your claims regarding the P-38's shortcomings.

So bring your sources to the table

 

[GrauGeist]

I said F-5, which was unarmed...regardless of your back-tracking and editing, the fact remains I I asked you to source you P-38 claims.

So let's see it.

 

[GrauGeist]

I wrote - quite clearly- "refer to 'The P-38 as a Bomber' thread", the data is there, & its front & centre, so - quick march!

You just posted bullsh!t in that thread...that is not a source.

What are your sources for your P-38 claims?

 

[GrauGeist]

So, you've read the entire thread have you?

& the FACTS posted there by better informed members than you, are "bullshit"- are they?

I'd reckon its obvious who's going for the crown as BS champ around here..

What is your source for the P-38's performance?

I will keep requesting this from you, so stop deflecting and produce your source of facts.

 

[GrauGeist]

Are you ETOH raddled or what? Read the bloody thread, if you want the facts, simples..

Again, deflection...

You come into the discussion with your opinion, which doesn't have any bearing on historical fact and when your called to account for your claims, you try every game in the book to get out of providing fact to back your claims.

Now provide the source for your claims that the pathfinder was a failure.

Provide loss to success ratios for the P-38's bombing missions.

Start backing your speculation with sources.

 

[GrauGeist]

I have 'directed' you to the facts of the matter G-G, they are there in the specific thread
( which you refuse to read, oddly enough).
& that is the opposite of 'deflection'.. so why are you emulating shooter & his stupidities, now?

Personal attacks won't work.

I have asked you to back your claims, and you haven't yet.

I have asked you directly, in this thread, on the topic being discussed, to produce sources.

 

[GrauGeist]

Refer to post #524, this thread.

refer to my request for sources for your claims